Richard Joh v. Paul Suhey
709 F. App'x 729
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Joh injured a finger playing volleyball in prison on Dec. 4, 2013; X-rays diagnosed a fracture and treatment consisted primarily of "buddy-taping."
- Initial contact: Nurse Freeman initially refused to see Joh (allegedly shut infirmary door) but provided two ibuprofen about an hour later. Fee for meds was later refunded.
- Dec. 10–13: PA Bernard taped the finger; Head Nurse Marlene Majors ordered X‑rays and informed Joh of the fracture; Dr. Suhey reviewed imaging and continued taping for one month.
- Jan. 2014: Taping removed; Joh alleges the finger was disfigured, limp, and unusable; Dr. Young examined him on Jan. 15 but Joh alleges he "did nothing." Joh later transferred and, after release, learned the finger was dislocated and required surgery (performed Aug. 2015).
- Procedural posture: Joh sued prison medical staff and the facility alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and failure to train; district court dismissed for failure to state a claim; the panel affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nurse Freeman was deliberately indifferent for a brief delay in treatment | Freeman refused to see Joh and delayed care an hour, showing deliberate indifference and punitive intent (fee) | A short delay (≈1 hour) and refunded fee do not show knowledge and disregard of substantial risk; at most negligence | Not deliberately indifferent; brief delay and refunded fee insufficient to state Eighth Amendment claim |
| Whether Majors, PA Bernard, and Dr. Suhey were deliberately indifferent in diagnosing/treating fracture | They misdiagnosed/undertreated the fracture (taping) leading to permanent injury; ineffective treatment shows indifference | Their decisions were within medical judgment; differing or ineffective treatment is negligence or malpractice, not Eighth Amendment violation | Not deliberately indifferent; treatment disagreements/ineffectiveness do not state constitutional claim |
| Whether Dr. Young was deliberately indifferent by "doing nothing" at exam | Dr. Young examined Joh and failed to act or provide needed treatment | Plaintiff pleaded only conclusory allegations without facts showing Dr. Young knew and disregarded risk | Dismissed: conclusory "did nothing" allegations insufficient to infer deliberate indifference |
| Whether facility/officials (CCCF, training, Bachman, Lingle) liable for failure to train or supervisory liability | Facility failed to train/supervise medical staff, causing constitutional injury | No underlying constitutional violation proved against individuals; no specific allegations against Bachman or Lingle | Dismissed: failure‑to‑train claim fails absent underlying violation; no factual allegations against named supervisors |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
- Monmouth Cty. Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326 (3d Cir. 1987) (definition of serious medical need)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (official must know and disregard an excessive risk)
- Jenkins v. County of Hennepin, Minn., 557 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 2009) (brief/postponed delay in care not deliberate indifference)
- Johnson v. Hamilton, 452 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 2006) (delay in X‑ray can be negligence, not necessarily constitutional)
- Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004) (delay and medical malpractice differ from deliberate indifference)
- Brooks v. Kyler, 204 F.3d 102 (3d Cir. 2000) (temporary denial of care not necessarily Eighth Amendment violation)
- Durmer v. O’Carroll, 991 F.2d 64 (3d Cir. 1993) (courts should not second‑guess professional medical judgments)
- Inmates of Allegheny Cty. Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754 (3d Cir. 1979) (scope of judicial review over prison medical decisions)
- Bowring v. Goodwin, 551 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1977) (medical treatment is a professional judgment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must plead factual content to make claims plausible)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requires more than labels and conclusions)
- Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199 (3d Cir. 1996) (failure‑to‑train claim requires underlying constitutional violation)