Steven Pannebaker v. Karin Trotta

DLD-010 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 24-2245

___________

STEVEN PANNEBAKER,

Appellant

v.

KARIN TROTTA, Dentist at SCI-Mahanoy; ERIC SMITH, Dentist at SCI-Mahanoy;

JOHN STEINHART, Corrections Health Care Administrator

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-21-cv-02168)

Magistrate Judge: Honorable Daryl F. Bloom

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

October 17, 2024

Before: RESTREPO, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed November 15, 2024)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute binding precedent.

Steven Pannebaker, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis,

appeals from the District Court’s judgment in favor of the defendants. Ct. App. Dkt.

Nos. 1, 18. Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will

summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P.

10.6.

I.

In January 2020, Pannebaker submitted a sick call slip for a broken tooth. Dist.

Ct. Dkt. No. 77 at 71. Dr. Trotta performed an x-ray, noted tooth decay and a plan to

treat it, and documented that no follow-up was needed. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 70 at 933-35.

For the next few months, Pannebaker tried to manage his pain with over-the-counter pain

medications. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 77 at 71. Pannebaker submitted a sick call slip in April

2020 for another broken tooth. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 77 at 72. According to Pannebaker,

Trotta examined him but “did nothing.” Id. In Trotta’s visit notes, she documented that

Pannebaker was experiencing intermittent symptoms but was asymptomatic the day of

the visit, and everything appeared intact. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 70 at 936-37. COVID-19

restrictions at that time prohibited Trotta from performing an x-ray or any procedure that

required air filtration.1 Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 77 at 143-45.

1

In response to COVID-19, the Pennsylvania Department of Health initially suspended

all dental treatment except emergencies, Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 70 at 819-22, and later

allowed procedures that did not produce aerosols, such as simple extractions, Dist Ct.

Dkt. No. 70 at 713-17. But only facilities with adequate air filtration systems could

2

In June 2020, Pannebaker requested emergency triage because he was in severe

pain. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 77 at 73. Trotta performed an x-ray and noted it was unclear

whether his pain was tooth or sinus related. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 70 at 939. Trotta

prescribed medications, including ibuprofen, which Pannebaker claimed had no effect on

his pain. Id.; Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 77 at 73. Pannebaker was referred to the medical

department for potential sinus issues; his sinus x-ray was unremarkable. Dist. Ct. Dkt.

No. 70 at 943-47.

Dr. Smith examined Pannebaker in July 2020. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 70 at 948-50.

Pannebaker presented with pain, facial swelling, gross decay, a dental abscess, and a

non-restorable tooth. Id. at 949. Smith prescribed an antibiotic and ibuprofen, and he

extracted the decayed tooth the following week. Id. at 949-52. Meanwhile, Pannebaker

took expired antibiotics. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 77 at 73. Pannebaker informed Defendant

Steinhart, the Corrections Health Care Administrator, about the expired medication and

his infection. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 70 at 1089.

A week after the extraction, Pannebaker returned to the dental department with

mouth pain. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 77 at 74, No. 70 at 954. Smith noted that Pannebaker

would need another tooth extracted, prescribed medications, and advised Pannebaker that

resume all dental treatment that summer. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 70 at 833. Pannebaker’s

facility did not receive the upgraded air filtration system until 2021. Id. at 859-60.

3

he would re-evaluate him in two days. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 70 at 954. The visit notes

show that two days later, Pannebaker was feeling better. Id. at 957-58.

Pannebaker experienced more tooth pain in August 2020, so Smith prescribed

more medication and advised Pannebaker that he would be scheduled for a surgical

extraction once the COVID-19 isolation room was complete. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 70 at

959-962, No. 77 at 74-75. At the end of the month, Smith informed Pannebaker that he

needed oral surgery because of the tooth’s root structure, so he would be treated at

another facility with proper air filtration equipment. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 70 at 963-64. In

September 2020, Smith was transferred to another facility that had the requisite air

filtration system, and an oral surgeon extracted the tooth. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 70 at 726-

27, 973-74. In December 2020, Pannebaker wrote to Steinhart that he was still in pain

and having unspecified dental issues. Id. at 1090.

Pannebaker filed a civil-rights complaint against Trotta, Smith, and Steinhart

alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of

the Eighth Amendment. Dist. Ct. Dkt. Nos. 18, 19. Specifically, Pannebaker alleged

that Trotta and Smith unnecessarily denied and delayed his treatment, that Smith

prescribed expired antibiotics, and that Steinhart knowingly acquiesced in their behavior.

Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 18 at 12-14. The District Court2 granted summary judgment in the

2

A Magistrate Judge proceeding with the parties’ consent. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 44.

4

defendants’ favor. Dist. Ct. Dkt. Nos. 81, 82. Pannebaker appealed, and we have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 86.

II.

We review the District Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Dondero v.

Lower Milford Twp., 5 F.4th 355, 358 (3d Cir. 2021). Summary judgment is appropriate

“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is

“material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A material factual dispute is “genuine”

if “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.

“[P]rison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they act deliberately

indifferent to a prisoner's serious medical needs.” Pearson v. Prison Health Serv., 850

F.3d 526, 534 (3d Cir. 2017). In this case, the parties agreed that Pannebaker’s dental

problem was a serious medical need. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 71 at 8. Thus, we consider only

whether Pannebaker presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find that the

defendants were deliberately indifferent. See id. Deliberate indifference may occur when

a prison official intentionally refuses to provide medical treatment, delays necessary

medical treatment for a non-medical reason, prevents a prisoner from receiving necessary

treatment, or continues a treatment “in the face of resultant pain and risk of permanent

5

injury.” Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting White v. Napoleon,

897 F.2d 103, 109 (3d Cir. 1990)).

The District Court correctly concluded that there were no material factual disputes

precluding summary judgment on Pannebaker’s claims against Trotta and Smith. The

record demonstrates that Trotta and Smith provided Pannebaker care whenever he

requested it. Though he contends the care was not effective, his “mere disagreement as

to the proper medical treatment” does not support an Eighth Amendment claim. See

Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987).

Regarding the claim that Smith provided expired antibiotics, Pannebaker failed to provide

facts showing that Smith had the requisite culpable mental state when he treated him.

See Rouse, 182 F.3d at 197 (Negligence or medical malpractice claims, without more, do

not establish “deliberate indifference.”).

Pannebaker also argues that Trotta and Smith unnecessarily delayed his tooth

extractions. The record establishes that the prison’s dental operations were severely

limited due to COVID-19, and that any delay in the extractions resulted from the

Department of Health’s procedure prohibitions, not deliberate indifference. Pannebaker

contends that his condition qualified as an emergency under relevant COVID-19 policies,

so the restrictions should not have delayed his treatment. But Pannebaker’s disagreement

with Smith and Trotta as to the severity of his condition does not amount to an Eighth

Amendment violation. See Monmouth, 834 F.2d at 346; see also Durmer v. O’Carroll,

6

991 F.2d 64, 67 (3d Cir. 1991) (“[P]rison authorities are accorded considerable latitude in

the diagnosis and treatment of prisoners.”).

Finally, the District Court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of

Steinhart because Pannebaker failed to establish that Steinhart was personally involved in

any constitutional deprivation. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207–08 (3d

Cir. 1988); Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.3

3

Because Pannebaker’s claims fail on the merits, we do not address whether the

defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

7