1:10-cv-00216
W.D. Pa.Oct 18, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Roger Etkins, a prisoner proceeding pro se, sues Judy Glenn, Rodney Smith, and Eric Asp under Bivens for deliberate indifference to medical needs and an assault claim.
- The April 29, 2009 incident alleged Glenn struck Etkins with a door and denied a knee brace; later pain management and knee wrap issues are raised.
- Defendants move to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment, asserting failure to exhaust administrative remedies and qualified immunity, among other defenses.
- The Bureau of Prisons administrative-remedy records show Etkins fully exhausted remedies for some claims but not for allegations against Glenn; several related filings were defective or untimely.
- The Magistrate Judge applies Twombly/Iqbal's plausibility standard and the exhaustion requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
- The recommendation is to grant dismissal in favor of Glenn on exhaustion grounds, and to grant summary judgment for Smith and Asp on merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Has Etkins exhausted remedies against Glenn? | Ektins contends exhaustion was complete. | Glenn is not exhausted; administrative remedies were incomplete. | Glenn: summary judgment for failure to exhaust. |
| Is Smith liable for deliberate indifference as a non-medical administrator? | Smith delayed or denied pain management. | Smith did not provide care; not responsible for medical treatment decisions. | Smith: claims dismissed; no deliberate indifference. |
| Is Asp liable for deliberate indifference for delaying pain medication and denying a knee wrap? | Asp delayed medication and denied knee wrap. | Asp renewed medication promptly and permitted knee sleeve; not liable. | Asp: claims dismissed; not deliberately indifferent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
- Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 1999) (unreasonable risk of harm from deficient care)
- Durmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64 (3d Cir. 1993) (non-medical officials not liable for mere malpractice)
- White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103 (3d Cir. 1990) (persistent conduct in presence of pain and risk)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion not affirmatively plead; defense must prove exhaustion)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires compliance with procedural rules)
- Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004) (procedural-default analysis for exhaustion)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requires plausible claims)