Dennis v. Jensen, 4:10-cv-01486

Dennis, a former inmate at USP-Canaan and current inmate at USP-Atwater, filed a Bivens action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 against federal prison staff (Jensen, Vander Hey-Wright, Denuzzia).
Plaintiff alleged Eighth Amendment denial of medical care for a November 27, 2008 wrist injury, claiming failure to cast and delayed surgery caused lasting impairment.
Initial complaint and exhibits included BP-8/BP-9 grievances and medical records; plaintiff sought $250,000 in damages and restoration of wrist function.
The court screened the complaint under the PLRA, and previously recommended dismissal with prejudice of claims against all three defendants; later Plaintiff amended his pleading.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was deemed inadequate under Rule 8 and failed to plead personal involvement or cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against the defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amended Complaint states an Eighth Amendment claim	Plaintiff contends deliberate indifference and insufficient medical care caused lasting injury.	Defendants argue the Amended Complaint lacks factual specificity and personal involvement.	Amended complaint inadequate; failure to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim.
Whether there is sufficient personal involvement for liability	Plaintiff alleges negligence/deliberate indifference by multiple defendants	No defendant personally involved; no supervisory or direct involvement alleged	Plaintiff failed to allege personal involvement of any defendant.
Whether the claim is futile or barred by failure to exhaust	Amended pleading shows ongoing medical neglect and requests relief	Claims not properly exhausted and amended pleading fails Rule 8 requirements	Recommendation to dismiss with prejudice as futile and for lack of exhaustion compliance.
Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice and for futility	Plaintiff seeks another opportunity to cure defects	Further amendment would be futile; prejudice to defendants	Dismissal with prejudice; no further amendment permitted.

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (medical need must be treated; deliberate indifference standard applied)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleadings must contain plausible claims; threadbare recitals insufficient)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (two-part plausibility standard for pleading claims)
Monmouth Cty. Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 130 (3d Cir. 1987) (serious medical need and reasonableness in response to needs)
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (U.S. 1976) (liability cannot be predicated solely on respondeat superior)
Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286 (3d Cir. 1997) (personal involvement required for civil rights liability)
Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004) (medical claim standards in Third Circuit; required showing of substantial risk)
O’Connell v. Sobina, 2008 WL 144199 (W.D. Pa. 2008) (two-step Iqbal/Twombly pleading analysis in screening complaints)