JOHNSON v. COLEMAN, 2:11-cv-01376

Johnson, a inmate at SCI-Fayette, sues Coleman, Dr. Herbick, and Tretinik under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Plaintiff seeks punitive, nominal, and compensatory damages for alleged constitutional violations; motions to dismiss were filed by Dr. Herbick (ECF Nos. 16, 17) and by Coleman and Tretinik (ECF Nos. 18, 19).
Before incarceration, Johnson was diagnosed with chronic right subclavian stenosis with thrombosis; doctors recommended ongoing monitoring and potential surgical intervention to prevent clotting and limb dysfunction.
In prison, Johnson alleges Dr. Herbick minimized ultrasound monitoring, and that a vascular surgeon was not adequately consulted; he cites a 2008 statement downplaying ultrasound necessity absent pain.
The parties dispute whether the § 1983 claims are time-barred or tolled during administrative exhaustion; the court addresses accrual, continuing violation doctrine, and exhaustion tolling.
The Report recommends granting all motions to dismiss with prejudice, finding the claims either untimely or lacking cognizable deliberate indifference against each defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the claims are time-barred or tolled during exhaustion	Johnson argues tolling during exhaustion preserves timely claims.	Herbick argues accrual and no tolling; claims filed after limitations, continuing violations inapplicable.	Claims untimely or not tolled; dismissal with prejudice appropriate.
Whether Dr. Herbick's conduct constitutes deliberate indifference	Johnson contends denial or inadequate treatment shows deliberate indifference.	Herbick asserts professional judgment and adequate care; not a constitutional violation.	Dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim; no deliberate indifference.
Whether Coleman and Tretinik, as non-medical administrators, can be liable for deliberate indifference	Johnson claims their reviews of grievances show actual knowledge and failure to act.	Responding to grievances does not establish personal knowledge or involvement; respondeat superior cannot anchor liability.	Dismissal with prejudice; no cognizable personal involvement shown.

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (deliberate indifference required for Eighth Amendment claim)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (accrual occurs at injury)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference requires a culpable state of mind)
Spruill v. Gilis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004) (non-medical officials generally not liable absent actual knowledge)
Durmer v. O’Carroll, 991 F.2d 64 (3d Cir. 1993) (grievance responses do not establish deliberate indifference)
Lanzaro v. Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst. Inmates, 834 F.2d 326 (3d Cir. 1987) (serious medical need may be established by diagnosis or denial of treatment)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331 (3d Cir. 1989) (accrual when the injury is known)
Sameric Corp. of Del., Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 142 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 1998) (statute of limitations accrual and tolling considerations)