Filed: Sep. 06, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-6-2006 Darden v. Laurie Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1465 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Darden v. Laurie" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 479. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/479 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United S
Summary: Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-6-2006 Darden v. Laurie Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1465 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006 Recommended Citation "Darden v. Laurie" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 479. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/479 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United St..
More
Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-6-2006
Darden v. Laurie
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1465
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Darden v. Laurie" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 479.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/479
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DPS-318 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-1465
________________
DEREK C. DARDEN,
Appellant
v.
LAURIE, Nurse; JOAN CROWE,
R.N. Head Nurse; DAVIS, Dr.;
RICHARD GOLDBERG, Dr.;
HARRIS GUBERNICK, Director;
LAUREY TURNER
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. O5-cv-02118)
District Judge: Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr.
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
August 24, 2006
Before: FUENTES, VAN ANTWERPEN AND CHAGARES, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed September 6, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Derek Darden appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint by the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. We will dismiss the appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B).
I.
According to Darden’s complaint, on April 4, 2004, he slipped and fell down
eleven steel and concrete steps and landed on a concrete floor in the Bucks County
Correctional Facility. Nurse Turner and the other prison officials who responded moved
him onto a back board and returned him to his cell. Although Darden told officials that
he was in serious pain, he was not placed in a neck brace or examined by prison staff
before being moved, no paramedics were called, and he was not taken to the prison’s
dispensary or the hospital. The next day, Darden was taken by wheelchair to another
block of the prison, where he was put on “lockdown” until he saw Dr. Davis on April 8,
2004.
Darden asserts that the defendants provided inadequate treatment after the fall.
Specifically, Darden contends that Dr. Davis refused to provide him with a cane,
wheelchair or walker, and that his pain continued, at times radiating down his arms and
legs, and causing his hands to shake. When he received the results of his MRI, Darden,
who was still sometimes in “extreme and excruciating pain,” suspected that both Dr.
Davis and Dr. Goldberg were being “deceptive” in delivering the results. He also
2
contends that Director Gubernick improperly deferred to the medical department when he
responded to Darden’s grievances and failed to use his authority to further investigate
Darden’s treatment. According to Darden, as a result of the fall he suffers from severe
pain in his shoulders, back, arms, and legs, as well as headaches, dizziness, and memory
loss. He alleges he can no longer function normally or seek employment.
Drs. Davis and Goldberg filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All other defendants
filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The
District Court granted the motions. Darden now appeals the District Court’s judgment.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. When reviewing the District
Court’s grant of motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
we must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, and all reasonable
inferences that can be drawn from them. See Ransom v. Marrazzo, 848 F.2d 398, 401
(3d Cir. 1988). In order for Darden’s Eighth Amendment claim to prevail under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, Darden must show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a
serious medical need. See Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97 (1976). Allegations of
negligent treatment are medical malpractice claims, and do not trigger constitutional
protections.
Id. at 105-06. Instead, deliberate indifference requires a sufficiently
culpable state of mind. See Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).
3
Disagreements with a medical judgment cannot form the basis of an Eighth Amendment
claim. See White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 110 (3d Cir. 1990).
Though Darden has clearly endured significant hardship, his allegations do not
amount to deliberate indifference. Rather, his pleadings demonstrate the amount of
medical attention he received from the defendants. According to the complaint, Darden
saw Dr. Davis on April 8, 14, 20, 23, 30, and May 3, 7, 11, 17, 25. He was given pain
medication, received an x-ray within five days of the accident, and was given a
recommendation for a neck brace. As Darden continued to experience pain, he was sent
to visit Dr. Goldberg, an orthopedic surgeon, and underwent an MRI. The physicians’
post-MRI opinion was that the fall likely aggravated a pre-existing condition in his upper
and lower vertebras, but the resulting problems would likely go away. Darden continued
to be treated with pain medication until he was transferred out of the facility. Though
Darden clearly disagrees with his treatment, and perhaps also his diagnosis, that
disagreement does not articulate a claim. Darden’s allegation that he was not treated
until the fourth day after his injury, if true, may be troubling, but in the larger context of
all of the care he received, that fact alone does not allege that the defendants both knew
of and disregarded an excessive risk to Darden’s health or safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S.
at 837. In sum, the facts Darden presents do not amount to an allegation that the
defendants were deliberately indifferent in their care.
With regard to Drs. Davis and Goldberg, we are unpersuaded that Darden’s claims
4
meet the stringent criteria for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). See Kulick v. Pocono
Downs Racing Ass’n, 816 F.2d 895, 898-99 (3d Cir. 1987) (federal court has jurisdiction
over § 1983 suit so long as the plaintiff alleges that defendant’s actions violate federal
law; legal question of whether facts alleged state a violation is question on the merits);
Kehr Packages, Inc., v. Fidelcor, Inc.,
926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991) (noting that
threshold to withstand 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is lower than that required to withstand
12(b)(6) motion) (citation omitted). However, for the same reasons we gave earlier, we
concur with the District Court that Dr. Davis is entitled to dismissal pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).1
Regarding Dr. Goldberg, though we largely agree with the district court’s analysis,
we find its dismissal more appropriately denominated as one pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
See Black v. Payne, 591 F.2d 83, 86 n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (where district court decision
addressed the merits of whether appellant had established the prerequisites for each
claim, appellate court treated district court’s grant of motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction as dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)) cert.
denied,
444 U.S. 867 (1979); see also
Kehr, 926 F.2d at 1409. Consistent with our
findings concerning the other defendants, in light of the deliberate indifference standard
we outlined above, Darden’s claims against Goldberg do not state an Eighth Amendment
1
Dr. Davis also filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which the District
Court said it would have granted had it “not already granted his Rule 12(b)(1) motion.”
Darden v. Laurie, No. 05-2118,
2006 WL 120037 at *5 n.10 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2006). Dr.
Goldberg did not file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
5
violation.
Accordingly, Darden’s appeal is without legal merit and we will dismiss it
pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).
6
