BURRELL v. GREEN
2:17-cv-00439
E.D. Pa.Jun 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jason M. Burrell, a Pennsylvania inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Eighth Amendment violations based on dental treatment between Nov. 26 and Dec. 1, 2016.
- He alleges Dr. Thorris Green "roughly" extracted three teeth (after two Novocain shots), one tooth fractured, and Green declined to provide dentures; Plaintiff also refused subsequent outside treatment to preserve his case.
- Defendants filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to plead deliberate indifference and for lack of personal involvement (Byrne and Swinder); Plaintiff did not oppose.
- The complaint admitted timely sick-call treatment and that three of five teeth identified for extraction were removed, and that Green stopped the procedure after complaints.
- The court considered whether the alleged facts rise to "serious medical need" and "deliberate indifference," and whether Byrne and Swinder had the requisite personal involvement.
- The court dismissed all § 1983 claims, concluding Plaintiff failed to plead a constitutional violation and that amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dental care/denial of dentures alleges a "serious medical need" and deliberate indifference by Dr. Green | Burrell contends rough extractions and refusal to provide dentures constitute Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Green contends treatment was provided, dentures not required by policy, and Plaintiff's allegations show at most discomfort or disagreement with care | Court: Not a serious medical need as pled; receipt of timely care and mere disagreement with treatment fails to show deliberate indifference — claim dismissed |
| Whether Dr. Green's extraction technique and resulting pain show subjective culpability (deliberate indifference) | Burrell implies Green's rough technique and leaving tooth fragments reflect culpability | Green argues stopping procedure upon complaint, providing Novocain, and treatment choices reflect medical judgment, not indifference | Court: Medical judgment disputes and alleged pain do not establish the subjective standard for deliberate indifference — claim dismissed |
| Whether Byrne and Swinder are liable absent personal involvement | Burrell names them as defendants generally alleging inadequate medical care | Byrne and Swinder argue complaint lacks allegations of personal direction, knowledge, or acquiescence | Court: No particularized facts of personal involvement; respondeat superior insufficient — claims dismissed |
| Whether leave to amend should be permitted | Burrell had not amended and did not oppose motions | Defendants did not expressly oppose amendment but argued claims are deficient | Court: Leave to amend would be futile because the complaint cannot, as a matter of law, establish deliberate indifference — no amendment allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (pleading standard and construing pro se complaint)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard; legal conclusions not entitled to truth)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility threshold for complaints)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (prisoners must allege deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge of substantial risk)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (§ 1983 liability requires state action and constitutional violation)
- Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004) (mere disagreement over medical treatment insufficient for Eighth Amendment claim)
- Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754 (3d Cir. 1979) (courts reluctant to second-guess prison medical judgments)