Marissa Mark v. Brian Patton, 696 F. App'x 579

While incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center (FDC) in Philadelphia, Marissa Mark awoke in November 2011 unable to see from her left eye and reported the problem to prison staff.
She was seen the same day by a local general practitioner, then by an FDC general practitioner, and four days later by an ophthalmologist who ordered a three-week follow-up and referral to a neurologist.
Mark received a follow-up ophthalmology visit six weeks after the first ophthalmologist’s visit and later saw a neurologist after transfer; the neurologist attributed persistent vision problems to a virus.
Mark sued FDC Warden Brian Patton and Clinical Director Dr. Oldeida Dalmasi under Bivens, alleging deliberate indifference: delay in follow-up ophthalmology care, failure to schedule a neurologist, and supervisory failures to adopt policies that allowed a virus to propagate.
The District Court dismissed for failure to plausibly plead deliberate indifference; the Third Circuit affirmed, concluding the complaint lacked factual allegations showing a culpable state of mind or identified deficient supervisory policies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial/delay of medical care (ophthalmology follow-up and neurologist) alleged deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment	Mark: delay of three weeks for follow-up and failure to obtain neurologist show deliberate indifference causing serious harm	Defendants: treatment occurred promptly, no non‑medical reason for delay, and plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory	Court: Dismissed — allegations do not plausibly show knowledge of substantial risk or non‑medical deliberate indifference
Whether supervisory liability stated by alleging failure to implement policies that allowed viral propagation	Mark: Patton and Dalmasi failed to adopt/implement policies and training, enabling spread and resulting harm	Defendants: complaint fails to identify any particular deficient policy or facts showing awareness and deliberate indifference	Court: Dismissed — plaintiff failed to identify a specific policy or plead facts showing defendants knew of and were indifferent to an unreasonable risk

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for inadequate medical care)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing a damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: conclusory allegations insufficient to survive motion to dismiss)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard for complaints)
Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192 (deliberate indifference categories for direct liability)
Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318 (reckless disregard formulation of deliberate indifference)
Barkes v. First Corr. Med., Inc., 766 F.3d 307 (requirements for supervisory liability in prison medical claims)
Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C., 539 F.3d 237 (standard of appellate review for dismissal)