PHILADELPHIA – A per curiam complement of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has agreed with a trial court ruling that a Western Pennsylvania inmate suffering from schizophrenia, failed to show that medical officials at his corrections facility interfered with and altered his treatments.
Third Circuit judges Theodore A. McKee, Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. and Stephanos Bibas affirmed the dismissal ruling on May 25 in favor of Dr. Pushkalai Pillai, Psychiatrist, SCI-Greene; Robert Gilmore, Superintendent, SCI-Greene; Tracy Shawley, Grievance Coordinator, SCI Greene and Kerri Moore, Chief Grievance Coordinator, Department of Corrections, and against plaintiff Derrick N. Bragg.
“Bragg is a Pennsylvania state prisoner who was housed at State Correctional Institute-Greene. In May 2020, Bragg filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging Eighth Amendment violations against defendants regarding his mental health care, as well as a related retaliation claim,” the Third Circuit said.
“Bragg receives medication to treat schizophrenia. He alleged that the medication causes him anxiety and that defendant Pelai refused to adjust the timing of his medication, impeding his ability to participate in daily programs. Bragg further alleged that defendants Gilmore, Shawley and Moore interfered with his mental health treatment through their improper handling of grievances he filed against defendant Pelai. Bragg seeks damages and injunctive relief.”
DOC defendants and defendant Pelai both filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Bragg filed objections in opposition to the motions.
“The District Court granted the defendants’ motions because Bragg had not adequately alleged the DOC defendants’ personal responsibility, and had failed to state a claim of deliberate indifference to his medical condition, and had not met the standard for a valid retaliation claim. The Court declined to provide Bragg an opportunity to amend his complaint, concluding that amendment would be futile. Bragg timely filed his notice of appeal,” the Third Circuit stated.
According to the appellate court, they concurred with the District Court’s assessment that Bragg’s complaint “was insufficient to state a civil rights action against defendants” and that “Bragg has not sufficiently alleged that the DOC defendants were personally involved in the decisions concerning the timing of his medical treatment.”
“As the District Court also concluded, Bragg’s allegations about inadequate medical care do not amount to a violation of the Eighth Amendment. To succeed on such a claim, ‘A plaintiff must make (1) a subjective showing that ‘the defendants were deliberately indifferent to [his or her] medical needs’ and (2) an objective showing that ‘those needs were serious.”
“Prison officials can ‘act deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs by intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or interfering with the treatment once prescribed.’ However, ‘mere disagreement as to the proper medical treatment’ is insufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim.”
In the end, the federal appellate court opted to uphold the Western District Court’s ruling.
“Accordingly, we agree with the District Court’s determination that a dispute about the timing of Bragg’s medical care was insufficient to amount to ‘deliberate indifference.’ Because the appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court,” the Third Circuit said.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 20-3613
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00581
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com