Zeller v. Zhou, 8:18-cv-02650

Plaintiff David Courtney Zeller, a Maryland inmate proceeding pro se, sued Dr. Yiya Zhou under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unnecessary dental extractions and resulting injury from treatment at Roxbury Correctional Institution in 2012.
Zeller alleges that later examination (2016) revealed malpractice that left him unable to wear bottom dentures and requiring future implants; he seeks substantial damages.
Dr. Zhou submitted a letter explaining that extraction (rather than root canal and crown) is standard in the prison system when a tooth is non-restorable, and that Zeller signed consent and reported his denture fit in 2012.
Dr. Zhou moved to dismiss, arguing Zeller failed to file the Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (HCMCA) pre-filing requirements (Statement of Claim and Certificate of Qualified Expert).
The court considered subject-matter jurisdiction (federal-question under § 1983 or diversity) and whether Zeller alleged an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim; it also denied Zeller’s motion for appointment of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction (federal-question)	Zeller asserts § 1983 claim based on unconstitutional dental care (unnecessary surgery)	Dr. Zhou argues treatment decisions were appropriate and do not state a constitutional claim; state malpractice predominates	Court held no federal-question jurisdiction: allegations amount to disagreement/medical malpractice, not Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference; federal claim fails
Diversity jurisdiction / state-law malpractice	Zeller seeks large damages (Amended complaint increased amount)	Dr. Zhou notes both parties are Maryland citizens and diversity not alleged	Court held diversity absent; therefore state-law malpractice cannot proceed in federal court
HCMCA pre-filing requirements (certificate of qualified expert and HCADRO filing)	Zeller did not allege he complied with HCMCA preconditions	Dr. Zhou moved to dismiss for failure to file Statement of Claim and qualified expert certificate	Court held HCMCA preconditions were not met; malpractice claim fails as a matter of substantive state-law prerequisite
Motion to appoint counsel	Zeller claimed mental illness and frequent filings warrant counsel	Dr. Zhou opposed; court considered Zeller’s filings and ability to litigate	Court denied appointment of counsel (no exceptional circumstances shown)

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (§ 1983 covers unconstitutional medical treatment by state actors)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (medical malpractice alone does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference requires conscious disregard of substantial risk)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (complaint must state plausible claim for relief)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Rowland v. Patterson, 882 F.2d 97 (4th Cir. 1989) (HCMCA exhaustion/arbitration remedies are preconditions to suit)
Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1977) (prisoners’ right to treatment limited by medical necessity and reasonable cost/time)