Perez v. Ransome
1:22-cv-01087
M.D. Penn.Jun 20, 2025Background
- Francisco Perez, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, brought a pro se civil rights action alleging inadequate medical care for his shoulder, which he claimed worsened after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine at SCI-Dallas.
- Perez alleged Nurse Jane Doe #2 administered the vaccine shortly after a cortisone shot and assured him there would be no adverse effects; he attributed post-vaccine mobility and neurological issues to this sequence.
- Defendant Dr. Scott Prince was involved in Perez’s treatment post-vaccination, but vaccine administration records did not implicate Prince directly; Prince continued to treat Perez’s preexisting shoulder issues through various means.
- Perez filed two grievances: one contesting injuries from the vaccine and another alleging improper ongoing treatment. Only the grievance about the vaccine injury was fully exhausted through all administrative steps.
- Both Perez and Prince moved for summary judgment; various related procedural motions were also before the court.
- The court considered whether Perez exhausted his administrative remedies, whether his claims were barred by the PREP Act, and if there was any viable Eighth Amendment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies (PLRA) | Exhausted all remedies for all relevant claims | Only one vaccine injury grievance fully exhausted | Only the vaccine claim exhausted |
| PREP Act immunity for vaccine administration | Prince involved in vaccine, should be liable | PREP Act bars liability for COVID-19 vaccine injuries | Claim barred by PREP Act |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Treatment inadequate post-vaccine effects | Treated shoulder reasonably per standard of care | No Eighth Amendment violation |
| Dismissal of unidentified party | Proceeded against Jane Doe #2 as vaccine administrator | Jane Doe #2 never identified, should be dismissed | Jane Doe #2 dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion required under PLRA)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (standard for Eighth Amendment medical claims)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (PLRA exhaustion need not name individual defendant)
- Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004) (PLRA exhaustion procedures in Pennsylvania)