NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge.
This matter is presently before the Court pursuant to the submission of Motions [23, 29] to Dismiss by Defendants Correctional Officer Rupper and PA Nurse Lopez, and a Motion [31] for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Jose Miguel Hilario.
For the reasons state below, the Motions to Dismiss will be granted and the Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied.
This matter was originally opened to the Court by Plaintiff's submission of a Complaint [1], pursuant to
Plaintiff alleges that on February 8, 2012, while confined at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Dix, New Jersey, he fell while climbing down from his upper bunk. He states that he incurred "minor painful injuries on his body and his neck had some pain too. Plaintiff also had many knots on his body." (Complaint at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that he asked Correctional Officer Rupper for help, but she told Plaintiff, "Let me finish my work first!" (Complaint at 6.) Plaintiff states that another correctional officer then contacted PA Nurse Lopez. According to Plaintiff, PA Nurse Lopez talked with him about what had happened, then told Plaintiff that she would see him after her rounds. A correctional officer took Plaintiff from his housing unit to the examination room, where PA Nurse Lopez examined Plaintiff and prepared a report of his injuries. Plaintiff requested something for his pain and PA Nurse Lopez reportedly told Plaintiff that she would try to get some ice for him in his cell. She then scheduled an appointment for an X-ray and sent Plaintiff back to his cell. Plaintiff contends that he did not receive any ice. Plaintiff states that he did not receive any pain medication until February 10, after he submitted an "Inmate Request" form. Plaintiff was taken for an X-ray of his neck on February 10, but did not receive the results for two months, at which time Staff Nurse Elizabeth suggested a second X-ray, because the first was not clear. Staff Nurse Elizabeth scheduled a second X-ray, which was taken, but Plaintiff has never been given the results.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Correctional Officer Rupper, PA Nurse Lopez, and Staff Nurse Elizabeth have violated his civil rights, (Complaint at 6(c)), which this Court construes as an allegation that they have violated his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical treatment. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
Defendants Lopez and Rupper have moved to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, as the facts alleged demonstrate neither a "serious medical need" nor "deliberate indifference" to Plaintiff's medical needs. Plaintiff has not responded to the merits of the Motions to dismiss, but has opposed them, and moved for summary judgment, on the ground that the Motions were not filed timely.
This Court has considered the Motions and the various submissions of the parties and will decide the Motions on the briefs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b).
This Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in that the Complaint alleges federal civil rights claims under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to move to dismiss a claim in a civil action for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In addition, this Court must dismiss, at any time, certain prisoner actions that fail to state a claim.
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only `give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'"
"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff.
Where the deficiencies in a complaint can be remedied by amendment, a district court should not dismiss the complaint with prejudice, but should permit amendment.
A district court shall grant summary judgment, as to any claim or defense, "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). Thus, summary judgment is appropriate where the Court is satisfied that "`the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'"
Plaintiff seeks summary judgment, and opposes the pending Motions to dismiss, on the grounds that Defendants Lopez and Rupper did not file their Motions timely.
Defendant Rupper was served on October 25, 2013. (Docket Entry No. 14.) Pursuant to Rule 12(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he was required to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint within 60 days thereafter, or by December 26, 2013.
Defendant Lopez was served on November 21, 2013. (Docket Entry No. 16.) She was required to answer, move, or otherwise respond within 60 days thereafter, or by January 21, 2014.
Although Plaintiff did object to the requests for extension of time, by Local Civil Rule 6.1(b) such extensions are essentially automatic, and may be granted with or without notice to opposing parties.
Defendants Rupper and Lopez have moved to dismiss, for failure to state a claim, on the grounds that the facts alleged by Plaintiff demonstrate neither that he suffered from a serious medical need nor that they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.
The Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment is violated when prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner's serious medical needs.
To satisfy the first prong of the
The second element of the
"Where prison authorities deny reasonable requests for medical treatment, . . . and such denial exposes the inmate to undue suffering or the threat of tangible residual injury, deliberate indifference is manifest. Similarly, where `knowledge of the need for medical care [is accompanied by the] . . . intentional refusal to provide that care,' the deliberate indifference standard has been met."
Here, Plaintiff himself has described his injuries as "minor" knots. (Complaint at 5.) Although he alludes to some pain in his neck, his vague reference is not sufficient to raise his right to relief "above the speculative level."
In addition, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts demonstrating that either Defendant Rupper or Lopez was "deliberately indifferent" to his needs. The only allegation against Defendant Rupper is that she told Plaintiff to wait for her help until she finished what she was doing. In light of Plaintiff's own description of his injuries as "minor," and in the absence of any allegations suggesting that Defendant Rupper should have known that his needs were acutely serious, the suggestion that he should wait a few minutes does not constitute deliberate indifference. The allegations regarding PA Nurse Lopez are that she questioned Plaintiff about his injuries and determined that examination could wait until she had completed her rounds, that she then examined him and scheduled X-rays, and that she told him she would try to get him some ice in his cell, which never arrived. The fact that ice did not arrive to alleviate Plaintiff's discomfort from his minor knots does not demonstrate deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
Although Nurse Elizabeth has not been served and has not moved to dismiss, this Court is obliged to review the adequacy of such prisoner claims, "on its own motion," 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), "as soon as practicable," 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Here, the only allegations regarding Nurse Elizabeth are that she gave Plaintiff the results of his first set of X-rays and recommended a second set, which she scheduled, and which were taken. Although Plaintiff asserts that he has not been given the results of the second set of X-rays, the simple failure to provide the results of the X-rays cannot be said to demonstrate deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, especially where, as here, Plaintiff does not allege that he has requested and been refused those records and he does not allege that he alerted Nurse Elizabeth to any continuing symptoms suggesting an injury to his neck.
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for summary judgment will be denied and the Motions to dismiss of Defendants Rupper and Lopez will be granted. All claims against Defendant Nurse Elizabeth will also be dismissed. However, because it is conceivable that Plaintiff may be able to supplement his pleading with facts sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an application to re-open accompanied by a proposed amended complaint.
An appropriate order follows.
