PHILADELPHIA – A per curiam panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has agreed with a lower court that corrections officers and administrators did not deny a state prisoner access to doctor-ordered treatment.
On May 27, Third Circuit judges Thomas L. Ambro, Patty Shwartz and David J. Porter affirmed the dismissal in favor of Timothy Miller, CCPM/PCM; Heather Haldeman, Major of the Guard for Unit Management; Richard Ellers, Correctional Health Care Administrator and Mark Garman, Facility Manager/Superintendent, and against plaintiff Thomas Flick.
“Flick is a Pennsylvania state prisoner who was housed at State Correctional Institute Rockview. In October 2019, Flick filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging Eighth Amendment violations against defendants. Flick has gender dysphoria, and alleged in his complaint that defendants denied him access to doctor-ordered treatment to address excessive body hair. Flick seeks damages and injunctive relief,” the Third Circuit said.
“Flick supplemented his complaint with grievances he filed regarding the alleged denial of treatment. These grievances provide additional information concerning the nature of both the ordered treatment and the prison’s response. The doctor ordered regular and frequent access to shaving razors. Flick alleges that defendants, as members of the ‘Gender Review Committee’ at SCI-Rockview, did not follow the doctor’s orders. As a result, Flick states that he experienced increasing anxiety, depression, and thoughts of self-harm.”
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing that Flick failed to allege that defendants were personally responsible, and that qualified immunity applied because defendants did not violate a clearly established right.
In response, Flick filed a brief in opposition to the motion.
However, the District Court granted defendants’ motion because Flick had not adequately alleged the defendants’ personal responsibility. Furthermore, the Court declined to provide Flick an opportunity to amend his complaint to cure that defect, because Flick’s allegations did not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation.
Flick timely filed his notice of appeal, but the Third Circuit explained that it agreed with the District Court’s assessment that Flick’s complaint was insufficient to state a civil rights action against defendants.
This was because, as the District Court found, Flick “did not sufficiently allege that the defendants were personally involved in the decisions concerning the supply of razors or other hair-removal devices.”
“Even if the named defendants were personally involved, his complaint would still fail because, again as explained by the District Court, his allegations 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,” the Third Circuit concluded.
“Flick has alleged the latter, but not the former because a mere dispute about means of hair removal does not amount to ‘deliberate indifference.’ Because the appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.”
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 20-3159
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:19-cv-01811
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com