Charles Talbert v. Corizon Inc
711 F. App'x 668
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Charles Talbert returned to Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility (CFCF) in July 2016 after a prior 2014 suit against Corizon had settled.
- At intake Talbert alleges an unidentified Corizon employee referenced the 2014 suit and threatened to stick him with an HIV-infected needle; Talbert refused a TB blood test and was placed in medical lock‑in for 24 hours.
- Talbert later agreed to be tested (unclear from complaint whether that was a blood TB test or results) and remained incarcerated at CFCF for ~3 months.
- During incarceration Talbert repeatedly requested an x‑ray TB exam or off‑site TB testing; those requests were denied according to the complaint.
- Talbert sued several named Corizon employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation (for the 2014 suit) and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference (failure to test/treat TB). The district court dismissed with leave to amend; Talbert appealed without filing an amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants retaliated (First Amendment) by threatening to infect Talbert and confining him after he refused TB testing | Talbert: the threat and subsequent lock‑in were retaliation for his 2014 lawsuit | Defendants: no personal involvement by named defendants in the alleged threat or lock‑in; allegations refer to unidentified employee and generic "Corizon" | Dismissed — Talbert failed to plead personal involvement by the named defendants or a Monell custom/policy against Corizon |
| Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need (Eighth Amendment) by denying x‑ray or off‑site TB testing | Talbert: denial of x‑ray/off‑site testing exposed him to serious, communicable disease risk (TB) | Defendants: testing was available at CFCF; Talbert did not allege named defendants knew of an excessive risk or his reason for refusing testing; disagreement over treatment insufficient | Dismissed — plaintiff did not allege defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk; no plausible deliberate‑indifference claim |
| Whether dismissal order was appealable despite leave to amend | Talbert appealed instead of amending; he effectively elected to stand on his complaint | Defendants: district court dismissal with leave to amend normally not final unless plaintiff stands on complaint | Court: appealable — filing a notice of appeal instead of amending constitutes standing on the complaint |
| Pleading standard applicable to dismissal | Talbert: factual allegations suffice to state plausible claims | Defendants: claims fail under Rule 12(b)(6) and Twombly/Iqbal standards | Court: applied Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard and affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires a policy or custom)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference requires knowledge of, and disregard for, excessive risk)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (Eighth Amendment can protect against future exposure to serious communicable disease)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (personal involvement required for § 1983 liability)
- Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950 (plaintiff may elect to stand on complaint after dismissal without prejudice)
- Mulholland v. Gov’t Cty. of Berks, 706 F.3d 227 (examining Monell failure-to-train/custom allegations)