SANDERS v. OCEAN COUNTY BOARD OF FREEHOLDERS, 3:16-cv-05380

Background

Plaintiff Michole Sanders, a pro se prisoner, alleges that jail medical staff prescribed Pamelor for shoulder pain and failed to warn him of cardiovascular side effects, causing lifelong cardiovascular disease.
Plaintiff contends Pamelor was prescribed off-label as a painkiller and that the “Medication Guide” was withheld.
He filed a § 1983 suit asserting: (1) inadequate medical care (Eighth Amendment), (2) lack of informed consent (Fourteenth Amendment), and (3) conspiracy; he also asserted state-law tort claims.
The District Court previously granted in forma pauperis status, dismissed prior complaints for failure to state a federal claim, and gave Sanders multiple opportunities to amend.
On screening the Second Amended Complaint, the Court found the federal claims deficient (no deliberate indifference; allegations amount to negligence/medical malpractice) and dismissed them with prejudice after three failed attempts to cure.
The Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and noted Sanders may pursue them in state court within 30 days under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Eighth Amendment – inadequate medical care	Sanders: prescribing Pamelor and withholding better pain meds shows deliberate indifference and refusal/delay of proper treatment	Defendants: they provided medical treatment; disagreement over choice of medication and any warning omissions are at most negligence	Dismissed — no deliberate indifference; receipt of treatment and mere disagreement/possible malpractice insufficient for an Eighth Amendment claim
2. Fourteenth Amendment – informed consent	Sanders: staff failed to provide information/Medication Guide and prevented informed refusal, causing him to undergo treatment he would have refused	Defendants: Medication Guide had no cardiovascular warnings; manufacturer data sheet (which contained warnings) was not alleged to have been withheld; no intentional concealment	Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead deliberate indifference necessary for a right-to-refuse claim; allegations amount to negligence
3. § 1983 conspiracy	Sanders: Defendants conspired to cover up misuse of Pamelor	Defendants: no underlying constitutional violation; thus no basis for conspiracy liability	Dismissed — conspiracy claim fails because there is no underlying constitutional violation
4. State-law claims & jurisdiction	Sanders: asserts medical malpractice, negligence, IIED, NIED in state law	Defendants: (implicit) federal claims defective; court should decline supplemental jurisdiction	Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; federal claims dismissed with prejudice after repeated failed amendments; plaintiff may refile state claims in state court within 30 days

Key Cases Cited

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment)
Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 1999) (definitions of deliberate indifference: refusal, delay for nonmedical reasons, or prevention of recommended care)
Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326 (3d Cir. 1987) (disputes over adequacy of treatment do not generally state constitutional claims)
Inmates of Allegheny Cnty. Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754 (3d Cir. 1979) (courts should not second-guess prison medical judgments)
White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103 (3d Cir. 1990) (prisoners retain limited right to refuse treatment and to be informed of proposed treatment and alternatives)
Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2006) (elements required to show violation of right to informed consent/refuse treatment)
Bryant v. Kaskie, [citation="744 F. App'x 39"] (3d Cir. 2018) (failure to inform inmate of medication side effects is insufficient to show deliberate indifference; amounts to negligence)
Romero v. Ahsan, [citation="827 F. App'x 222"] (3d Cir. 2020) (medical malpractice allegations do not establish Eighth Amendment violations)
Harvard v. Cesnalis, 973 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2020) (elements for conspiracy under § 1983 require an underlying constitutional violation)
Talley v. Varner, [citation="786 F. App'x 326"] (3d Cir. 2019) (conspiracy claim fails absent an underlying constitutional violation)