SCRANTON – A federal judge has ordered further proceedings in the case of a prisoner housed at SCI-Forest, who claimed his 8th Amendment rights were violated when he was temporarily denied medical care for an abscessed tooth.
“On April 28, 2015, Marcus Brooking felt a sharp pang in his tooth. Prison guards passed by, and Brooking asked for help. None was given. The pain kept Brooking from sleep that night. The next day, Brooking couldn’t eat. In a desperate bid to capture the guards’ attention, Brooking refused to return a meal tray,” U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Matthew W. Brann said.
“When Sgt. Cleaver entered the cell to retrieve the tray, Brooking pleaded with him for medical treatment. Sgt. Cleaver replied: ‘Pain is not a sign of an emergency. Inmates don’t get that kind of treatment. Now, are you giving the trays up?'"
Twenty-four hours later, Brooking was put on the emergency medical call list by the prison’s head nurse and rushed to the infirmary. There, infirmary staff observed severe swelling in Brooking’s mouth, before they removed an abscessed tooth. In total, nearly 72 hours passed between Brooking’s request for medical treatment and the prison providing it.
Brooking filed suit pro se on Oct. 5, 2015 to enforce his constitutional rights. More than three years later, on Jan. 29, 2019, the Court found that Brooking stated a claim against Sgt. Cleaver for “deliberate indifference” to an inmate’s serious medical needs in violation of the 8th Amendment.
Sgt. Cleaver moved for summary judgment on Nov. 5, 2019, and Brooking supposedly did not file an opposition to this motion. As a result, on April 3, Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito Jr. filed a report and recommendation recommending that this Court grant Sgt. Cleaver’s motion.
However, Brann stated that in his objection to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, Brooking did in fact provide evidence that he attempted to timely file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
“It appears that the prison refused to send Brooking’s legal mail because his commissary account lacked the handful of dollars (at most) that would have been necessary to cover the postage fee,” Brann said.
Brann said in cases involving pro se litigants and prisoners, those parties “confront obstacles large and small that interfere with the standard operation of litigation”, and though not exempt from procedural rules, “courts should interpret these rules generously in light of the difficulties involved for pro se litigants.”
Brann added that Brooking tried in good faith to comply with the rules of procedure and was denied that opportunity because of a “trivial” amount of money.
“To not even consider his arguments on the merits due to this minor shortfall would be a failure to administer justice in this case. To be clear, I find no fault with Magistrate Judge Saporito’s report, as no opposition was filed at the time he considered the government’s motion,” Brann stated.
“However, the circumstances now present the opportunity to reach a decision on the merits. I deem Brooking’s opposition to have been timely filed, and I reverse the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and remand for full consideration of the motion.”
The plaintiff is representing himself in this action.
Defendant Cleaver is represented by Nicole J. Boland of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:15-cv-02134
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com