-MAS JOHNSON v. HUDSON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, No. 2:2010cv02011 - Document 5 (D.N.J. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 7/12/10. (sr, )

Download PDF
H- H N) N) CD 0 CD N) N) CD CD N) N) HH CD 0 H N) C)) CD CD CD ¢ N) C) C) N) N) N) H H CD N) N) CD H N) N) H HFN) Z C) O H H N) CD N) N) H C) 0 CD N) H- H N) 0 - CD 0 N) H- N) N) O CD N) N) H- CD H N) H 0 H N) - N) H H N) CD N) CD N) 5 0 0 N) H N) H N) 0 H CD CD N) N) CD CD N) N) H CD N) CD N) D) CD S N) CD H CD H CD CD H N) 0 N) CD H CD CD N) H C) 0 S H N) CD N) N) CD HH N) HN) N) HN) N) 0 CD CD CD N) HCD N) N) CD N) C) CD )N CD N) C) CD N) H N) CD C) H CD N) N) N) H0 CD N) H- 0 CD N) C) N) N) CD H N) CD H N) H CD C) HN) CD H 0 N) H- N) 0 H- H N) N) CD H 0 N) < 0 N) HH CD C) N) H- HN) CD H CD N) 0 N) CD N) N) N) N) CD o H 0 ¢ H CD CD N) CD N) H CD H CD N) N) N) N) H CD CD N) 0 N) H HCD C) CD ¢ lCD IH It) CD 5 H 0 N) HH N) 0 H 0 H H- H0 CD N) N) N) N) CD CD N) HN) N) N) N) CD H- HN) CD N) CD CD H N) N) N) CD N) CD CD H N) N) H- N) H- H 0 N) CD H N) N) CD N) CD S H)I () 0 5 CD HH N) CD H CD N) H HH HCD N) H CD N) H- S N) CD H HCD N) H C) CD N) H N) H 0 N) N) CD N) N) CD N) N) CD CD N) N) CD H N) N) C) N) H CD CD N) H H- CD H- N) P1 Cl) P1 N) N) CD CD 5 HCD N) H CD N) H- CD CD CD H CD C) N) C) N) C) N) J CD H N) 0 H CD H CD N) H N) CD H CD N) C) H o -< CD C) Ci N) CD HH N) N) - N) N) 0 N) N) 0 N) H 0 CD CD H N) It) N) H CD N) C) HN) 0 H- N) N) C)CDC) HCD CDQ CDCDH HHH HC) N)H ON) CDH CDCDH CDC) ZHO CD N)C) HN)CD C)Z HCDOrN) H)HN)N)H CDCnHQN)N) CD CD H LXI 0 CD N) N) CD H N) CD H N) Z N) C) N) C) 0 N) HN) H N) H- N) CD N) Dockets.Justia.com z 0 H H 0 N) N) 0 N) N) C) H N) C) 0 C) N) H H C) 0 ZN) HO) N)Q N)c) ZN) C) N) 0 N) N) Cl) C) N) N) N) H N) N) N) H 0 H 0 Z 0 proceed ¢fot.ma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (198) and order the Clerk of the Court to file the Complaint accordinoly. At this time, to 28 U.S.C. the Court must review the Complaint, §5 1915(e) (2) (B) and l9l5A, oursuant to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Por the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. I. Plaintiff, action, BACKGROUND Kenneth Johnson pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Correctional Center. ( Johnson ), § 1983, (Complaint, brings this civil against the Hudson County Caption) The following . factual allegations are taken from the Complaint, accepted for purposes of this screening only. and are The Court has made no findings as to the veracity of plaintiff s allegations. Johnson alleges that on March 28, bunk in his cell, 2010, he fell off the top hurting his left knee and right shoulder. complained to the correctional officers about the pain, not seen b a doctor until April 8, x ray and Advil for the pain. 2010. He but was Plaintiff was given an He states that he has a lump or knot on his right shoulder and a scar on his left knee. He filed C) Di HCD CD CD )i) NJ Di Ft Ft a CD Di HCD Ft Di Ft Ft CD C) 0 NJ Ft CD CD CD Ft CD C) 0 CD H Ft Ft Ft CD ¢ C) Ft C) CD) HH a C) Ft HCD CD C) CD H- C) Di Ft - C) C) CD t) CD a C) Di H H H C) Di CD 0 CD NJ H HC) C ) CD CD Ft Ft Di Ft CD Ft Ft Ft Ft CC CD Ft CD Ft Ft CD Ft C) Ft Ft C) t) HCD C) - NJ NJ C) C) - CD CD - * Ui Ft Di Ft Ft C) * C) C) C) C) C) a NJ ¢ Ft C) C) C) C) C) .CD H CD CD H C) Di - H H CD CD Ft C) Ft Di Ft CD it C) Ft Di Ft Ft Ft H CD CD Di CD Ft Di C) C) CD a CD Ft C) CD H- 0 Di Ft CD C) CD CD NJ C) Ft - a Di CD -- C) -U C) Ft C) C) Ft C) -U C) C) NJ C) C) C) C) C) C) C) CX) C) ¢ C) (ii Ft C) - NJ C) NJ Ft - Ft CD (fT Ft Ft CD 0 Ft Ft Di H 0 H HCD Di Ft Ft < H Ft HFt CD HFt C) 0 CD CD Ft H CD CD Ft 0 Ft CD Ft a CD HCD Ft CD CD CD CD Ft Ft Ft CD - Ft Ft Di HCD Ft CD 0 C) CD CD H 0 0 Di 0 Ft Ft Ft HC) HCD CD C) CD CD Ft Ft CD C) HCD HCD CD CD Ft CD H a Ft Ft C) it C) Ft 0 CD H Ft CD Q2 () Di CD - Ft NJ CD 0 C) Ft Ft C) ¢ C) ¢ C) C) CD NJ Ft 0 Ft Ft CD H a CD CD HCD CD Di Ft CD HCD a Ft 0 H H CD CD CD HCD iQ C) CD a 0 CD Ft CD CD CD CD Di Ft 0 CD C) Ft - CD CD CD H- Di C) Ft H0 CD HCD Ft Ft Ft (ii Ft C) Ft Di CD C) NJ CD - Ft C) Ft C) H ¢ C) C) C) Di CD Ft H 0 H CD Ft HCD Ft L< Di C) ¢ C) CD CD CD CD CD C CD 0 H a CD Ft C) H Di CD Ft CD Di < CD HCD Ft H CD Ft HC) Ft CD Ft 0 CD 0 CD CD Ft NJ H CD Ft HCD Ft CD C) Ft CD CD 0 H Ft CD CD CD CD CD H- HCD Ft 0 it Di CD a CD Ft CD CD a Di C) Di HCD CD Ft H CD C). H CD CD CD C) C) L< CD H CD H Di C) CD CD Ft HFt a H- Ft 0 a H CD C) CD HH CD HCD Ft H HCD C) CD CD H Di Ft HC) Ft HCD C) Ft Di H- Di Ft CD Di CD Ft Ft 0 Ft CD H- Ft Di Di Ft HC) H0 CD CD CD CD CD C) Di Ft 0 H HCD HCD CD CD HCD a 0 CD Ft CD C) HCD C) 0 CD H Ft Ft Ft CD ¢ CD CD CD CD 0 H H- CD CD Di CD CD Ft 0 Ft Di CD C5 CD H HCD CD 0 H 0 < CD CD Ft Ft Ft a Di CD CD Di H- Ft C) CD HCD C) a CD Di Ft Ft Ft CD CD CD Di CD CD Ft N CD - 0 C) CD HFt H 0 C) 0 Ft 0 CD CD H Ft H H- HCD Ft Ft Di Ft CD C) Ft Di H- Di CD < CD CD 0 Di C) Ft H- HFt H C) H- Di HCD Ft Ft Ft Di HCD C) 0 Di H CD H HCD E Ft 0 CD H Ft 0 C) HCD it H HC) Ft a Di H CD C) CD HH CD CD NJ . - C) C) C) Ft - NJ C) Ft H HFt Ft -J I Ft C) Ft 0 Ft C) C) Ft C) NJ Ft Ft (1) Ft Di Ft Ft C) - CD Ft C) CD C) Ft C) C) I C) C) Ft 0 Ft Ft Ft C) CD Ft Ft Ft C) -- C) Ft CD Ft CD Ft C) H )A) CD 0 HC) Di Ft H- çt Ft H- C) H HCD 0 CD Ft Ft CD Ft Ft Ft C) C) Ft Ft Ft C) C) C) C) 0 Ft Ft NJ Ft C) C) Ft Ft 0 Ft C) C) C) Ft Ft C) C) Ft Ft Ft H CD Ft HCD Ft Ft 0 H CD H- C) Ft Di Di CD Ft Di CD Ft CD 0 Ft a 0 CD CD C) 0 Ft CD CD 0 CD Ft ¢ CD CD Di C) CD Di a C< CD Di H CD Ft Ft Di HFt it CD CD CD 0 CD L< Ft Ft CD CD H- o Ft a CD Di - HCD Ft Ft H CD < H 0 a CD C) Ft Di H Di Ft CD CD CD C CD Ft CD it it Ft Di a ¢ NJ C) Ft C) Ft C) Ft Ft H HFt C) CD Ft Di C) H 0 CD CD H it C) CD CD Ft H0 CD Di Ft C) C) 0 H H CD CD Ft CD 0 C) CD 0 CD a Ci) CD it Ft CD Di C) Di HCD CD it CD CD C) Di CD Di a H e CD C) Ft Di H- it 0 H it Di reasonable inferences that ca.n be drawn therefrom, and view them ic the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Morse v. Merion School Dis7., 1997). need not, howEnrer, 132 F.3d 902, credit a ¢ ¢ ¢ pro or lecal conclusions.. A complaint is (1989) 3d Cir. plaintiff s bald assertions frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis Neirzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. (interpreting the predecessor of § 1915(e) (2), former § 1915 (d)) 67 F.3d 1080, A pjg 319, the The standard for evaluating whether a . complaint is frivolous is an objective one. States, The Court Id. either in law ¢or in fact.. 325 906 Lower 1086-87 (3d Cir. Deutsch v. United 1995) complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Gibson, at 93 94 355 U.S. Haines, 41, 404 U.S. 45 46 at 521 (1957)). (quoting Conley v. See also Erickson, (in a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint, 551 U.S. the Court reviewed whether the complaint complied with the pleadin g requirements of Rule 8. (a) (2) However, recently, the Supreme Court revised this standard for summary dismissal of a Complaint that fails to state a claim in Ashcroft v. lpbal, 129 Silt, 1937 (2009) . The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Iqbal s civil rights compla int adequately alleged defendants personal involvement in 4 discriminatory decisions regarding Iqbal s treatment during detention at the Metropolitan Detenti.on Center which, violated his constitutional rights. 8(a) (2) if true, The Court examined Rule id. of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which p.rovides that a comoiaint must contain a short and elair statement or the claim showing th.at the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (2).- Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, proposition that [a] conclusions or Citing its recent opinion in Bell 550 U.S. (2007), pleading that offers for the labels and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do, Twombly, 544 550 U.S. at 555), Ibal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting the Supreme Court identified two working principles underlying the failure to state a claim standard: First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations cortained in a corrplaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice Rule 8 does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not ... . . ... .. Rule 8(d) (1) provides that [ejach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required. Eed.R.Civ.P. 8(d). show[n that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a) Iqbal, 129 S.Ct, at 1949 1950 (citations Fed. omitted) The Court further explained that a court considering a motion to dismiss by identifying pleadings that, because can they choose to ar.e more no begin than conclusicns, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a comparnt, they must cc supported oy ractual aI±egatlons. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Imbal, 129 S.Ct. Thus, at 1950. to prevent a summary dismissal, civil complaints must now allege sufficient factual matter to show that a claim is facially plausible. This then allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. . at 1948. The Supreme Court s ruling in Iqbal emphasizes that a plaintiff must demonstrate that the allegations of his complaint are plausible. also Twombly, 505 U.S. 578 2l0(3d Cir. F.3d 203, Consequently, at 555, & n.3; at 1949-50; j. Fowler v. see UPMC Shadyside, 2009). the Third Circuit observed that Imbal provides the final nail in-the coffin for the set forth inConley. v. Gibson, no set of facts 35.5 U.S. 41, 45 46 standard (l957),2 that In Coniey, as stated above, a district court was permitted to summarily dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim only if it appear [cdi beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Id., 355 F33 at 45 46. Under this no set of facts standard, a complaint could effectively survive a motion 6 applied to federal complaints before Twombly. Fowler, a: 210. trjct 5 $ The Third Circuit now reguires that a must conduct the two-part analysis sat forth in 1gb 578 F.3d court when oresented wi:h a motion to dismiss: First, t.he factual and legal elements of a claim should be sesarated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint s weli-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. [Igbai, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 501. Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief. [.] In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff s entitlement to relief. A complaint has to show such an entitlement with its facts. See Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234 35. As the Supreme Court instructed in Igbal, [w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not show [n] - that the pleader is entitled to relief. Igbal, [129 S.Ct. at 194 9 50] This plausibility determination will be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. . . Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210 211. This Court is mindful, however, that the sufficiency of this se pleading must be construed liberally in favor of Plaintiff, (2007) . even after Iqbal. Moreover, See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 a court should not dismiss a complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim without granting leave to amend, unless it finds bad faith, See Grayson v. 111 (3d Cir. 2002); undue delay, Fayview State hcsp. Shane v. Fauver, , prejudice or 293 F. 3d 103, 213 F. 3d 113, 117 (3d Cir. 2000) to dismiss so lono as it contained a bare recitation of the claim s legal elements. 7 110 III. SECTION 1983 ACTIONS P1. aintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides in relevant part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory . . . suh cots, or causes to be sublected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the marty inured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress Thus, to state a claim for relief under § 1983, allege, first, a plaintiff must the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and, second, that the alleged deprivation was committed or caused by a person acting under color of state law. (1988); Piecknick v. West v. Pennsylvania, Atkins, 487 U.S. 36 F.3d 1250, 42, 48 1255 56 (3d Cir. 1994). Here, Johnson names the Hudson County Correctional Center as a defendant in this action. However, the Hudson County Correctional Center must be dismissed from this lawsuit because it is not a person subject to liability under § 1983. Grabow v. 538 .39 . (D,N.J. imti ¢ .; 271, Southern State Correctional Facility, 274 Supp. 537, 1989) (correctional facility is not a person under :8ztcoell v. (D.C. 726 F. Pa. Coaster County Farms Prison, 1976) . z6 F. Supp. Because plaintiff does not name another defendant ut in its entirety. To the extent that Johnson would seek to amend this action, 8 the Complaint will be dismissed his Complaint to name other defendants, reasons stated below, this Court finds, for the that the aileoaticns in the Comolaint fail to state a cognizahie claim under § 1383. IV. ANALYSIS it anpears from the allegations in the Complaint that Johnson is asserting a denial of medical care claim in violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. It is not clear whether Johnson was a pretrial detainee or a convicted inmate at the time of the alleged incident. Accordingly, the Court will consider Johnson s claims urder both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment requires that prison officials provide inmates with adequate medical care. (1976); Rouse v. Estelle v. Plantier, Gamble, 182 F.3d 192 429 U.S. (3d Cir. 97, 103 04 1999). In order to set forth a cognizable claim for a violation of his right to adequate medical care, medical need; and (2) an inmate must allege: (1) a serious behavior on the part of prison officials that constitutes deliberate indifference to that need. 429 U.S. at 106; 318 F.3d .575, .582 Natale v. (3d Cir. Estelle, Camden County Correctional Facility, 2003) To satisfy the first urong of the Estelle inquiry, the inmate must demonstrate that his medical needs are serious. Because society does not expect that prisoners will have unqualified access to health care, 9 deliberate indifference to medical needs amounts tc an Eighth Amendme nt violation only if those needs are serio us. Hudson v, cMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) The Third Circuit has defined a serious me dical need as: (1) one that has bee n diagnosed by a phys ician as requiring treatment; (2) one tha t is so obvious that a lay person would recognlze the necessl ty mr a doctor s attention; or (3) one for which the denial of treatment would resu lt in the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain or a lifelong handicap or permanent loss. Atkinson v. Taylor, 316 F.3d 257, 272-73 (3d Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citatio ns omitted); also Monmouth County Corre ctional Institutiona l Inmates v. Lanzaro , 834 F.2d 326, 347 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1006 (1988) . The second element of the Estelle test requires an inmate to show that prison of ficials acted with de liberate indifference to his serious medical need. Natale, 318 F.3d at 582 (finding deliberate indifferenc e requires proof tha t the official knew of and disregarded an ex cessive risk to inmate health or safety) Deliberate indiffere nce is more than mere malpractice or negligence; it is a sta te of mind equivalent to reckless disregard of a known risk of harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 38 (1994). Furthermore, a priso ner s subjective dissatisfaction with his medical care doe s not in itself indica te deliberate indifferenc e. Andrews v. Camden Co unty, 95 F. Supp.2d 217, 228 (D.N.J. 2000); Peterson v. Da vis, 551 F. Supp. 137 , 145 10 (D. Md. 1982), aff d, 729 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir. 1984). Similarly, mere disagreements over medical iudgment do not state E±ehth Amendment claims, 1990 . White v... Napol.eon, 897 F.2d 103, (3d cir 110 Coorts will disavow any attempt to second goess the propriety or adequacy of a particular course of treatment [whichj remains a question of sound professional judgment. Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Cir. 1979) Pierce, 612 E.2d 754, (internal quotation and citation omitted) 762 (3d Even if a . doctor s judgment concerning the proper course of a prisoner s treatment ultimately is shown to be mistaken, at most what would be proved is medical malpractice and not an Eighth Amendment violation. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06; White, 897 F.3d at 110. The Third Circuit has found deliberate indifference where a prison official: (1) knows of a prisoner s need for medical treatment but intentionally refuses to provide it; (2) necessary medical treatment for non medical reasons; delays or (3) prevents a prisoner from receiving needed or recommended treatment. See Rouse, 182 F.3d at 197. The court also has held that needless suffering resulting from the denial of simple medical care, which does not serve any penological purpose, violates the Eighth Amendment. Atkinson, 316 F.35 at 26. also Monmouth County Corr.ctional Institutional Inmates, at 346 ( deliberate indifference is demonstrated See 834 F.2d [wjhen prison authorities prevent an inmate from receiving recommended treatment for serious medical needs or deny access to a physic ian canable cf evalua:irc the need for such treatment ); C Carroll, F.2d 103 991 F.2d 64 (3d Cir. (3d Cir. 1993); White v. Durmer v. Napoleon, 897 1990) This Court finds, based on the allegations of the Comolaint, that Johnson has failed to show the necessary element ¢of deliberate indifference to support his Eighth Amendment denial of medical care claim. Assuming for purposes of this Opinion only that plaintiff has shown a serious medical need, Johnson cannot show deliberate indifference by the defendant because Johnson admittedly was provided medical care. seen by a doctor on April 8, 2010, Johnson admits that he was only 11 days after the injury. He was x-rayed and given Advil for the pain. Thus, at most, there appears to be a disagreement by plaintiff as to the treatment he received. Johnson simply complains that the Advil prescribed for him was not enough for his pain. As stated above, mere disagreements over medical judgment do not state Eighth Amendment claims. White, 897 F.2d at 110. sound in medical negligence, Such allegations which is not actionable under the Eighth Amendment as a claim of a constitutional deprivation. See A.t bough the sE...riousness of plaintiff s medical need may be a fact question, Johnson d.oes not aliege any permanent injury or disability, fracture, or other serious injury requiring more care than he received, He also fails to allege any facts to show that his injury required more than the x-ray and medication provided. Johnson states only that he had pain and it took more than a week to be seen by a doctor. Consequently, it would appear that Johnson would be unable to prove a serious medical reeo. 12 H H HCD S C) H CD H- CC HCD CD 0 Cl CD C) HCD CD CD Ft Ft O HCl CD H H CD Ft H HCD H CD CD H CD 0 CD 0 0 4 C 0 CC HH - CD 0 O C) CD Ft CC CD Ft CD H H CD CD H CD HFt - CC CD H CD H- Ft CC CD 0 H CD C) Ft H- Ft CC CD CD Ft Cl CD Ft CD HO CD CD CD 0 Cl CD Ft C) CD H ¢ H Cl H- H H C) H0 Ft 0 HH HCD CD C) H0 0) à H 0 C) CD CD CD CD Cl. H H Cl CD Ft CD H0 CD CD CD H CD Ft H HCD H H 0 H H0 0 CD Ft Cl H- 0 C) 0 5 CD Cl HC) CD H 0 0 0 H C) Hi I C) H H H Cl C) CD H 0 H H H 0 0 H CD CD CD CD C) Ft CD 0 0 H H) 0 Cl CD H Cl Ft CD CD Ft CD 0 C) H C) CD 0 Cl UI HH CC Ft CC 5 CD 5 CD Ft 0 CD C) Ft H CD CD Ft CD Cl HC) CD H 5 Ft CD Cl - CD H Cl CD Ft Ft 0 0 CC C) CC 0 H CD 0 Cl HFt H0 0 C) 0 Ft CC CD CC CD Ft CC CD H ¢ -* ¢ ¢ - H- H CC 0 H H HCD CC ) H H CC CD HCl CC Ft 0 H H0 CD Cl CD 0) C) CD Ft CD - CC CD H CD 0 H - CD 0 Ft 0 CD H- H C) 0 0 C) 0 C) HFt H- - -- ¢ ¢ ¢ H C) HH Ft 0 H C) C). HC) CD Ft H0 0 U- CL CD Ft 0 H H0 H 05 CD 0 Ft 5 C) C) t)l HCD CC CC Ft C) H CD H HH HCD Cl HH C) C) HFt CO H CC HH Cl Ft CC CD CC C) CC CC CD H Cl 0 H - H Hi CX) CD Ft H CL H Ft CC CD CD CD Ft CL CL CD H 0 CD Ft CD Ft CC CD HCD CD 5 C) H CD H- CD C) C) CC H0 H0 H C) CD >C CD H 0 H CD H Cl C). CD Ft CD Cl tI 0 C CD H rij Ft CC CD - ¢ H C) CC H C) 0 H C) C) Hi ¢ HH C) H CL a) C) C) H Hi H H Ft Hi C) H C) C) H a) H H ¢ H H X H CD Cl H C) Hi H CD ¢ CD H 5 0 0 0 Ft H CD H CD 0 C/) CD CD a) H a) H H C) C) C) ¢ C/I CC a) C) CL CD Cl HCD CL ¢ C) CD H Ft H a) H H HH C) Cl H H H 0 H C) C) - C) H H H CC H H a) - CD H 0 N CD 0 Ft ¢ <I CD CD Ft CD S H Cl C) CD H 0 Ft H0 C) CD Ft HFt 0 H CD H 0 0 H H CD C) Ft H0 C) C) 0 C) 0 Ft 0 C) Ft CC 0 0 . H C) C) C) - H H a) Cl) ¢ CC Hi H H 1j HCD Cl 0 Cl CD ¢ C) CD H Ft * HH C) H Cl - H 0 H C) H - Hi H H H Cl ¢ H H C) C) 0 CD H CD ¢ C) CD t)l rt CD CD - ¢ H C) C) Hi CO HH H Cl H Hi a) C) Hi H Cl H H H H H ti H 0 H CD CD H Cl CC CC C) CC Ft H HCD H U) H- H 0 CD E CD HFt H- CD HH U- 0 H- H H0 CD CL 0 C) 0 Ft CC 0 CD CD Ft 0 CD C) CD Xl C) CD Cl HC) CD H 0 H H HC) HCD H CD 0 H HCD 0 H ) CC CD Ft CC CD H 0 H HCD CD C) CD Ft CC CD CD H 0 t- C) 0 0 Ft CD 0 Ft Ft CC CD 0 Ft CC CD CC CD H Ft H CD - CD 0 Ft S Cl 0 5 CD i 0 C) H Ft CD CD 0 Ft CC Ft CC CD 0 H C) CD CD Cl C) CD H CO H H 0 C) CD CD CD 0 H S CD CC Ft CC CD Ft H H 0 <I HCl CD LQ 5 C) CD C) tO Ft CC CD Ft CC CD Ft H 0 CC 0 H CL H- - H a) H H - Cl Hi H CD H H H H Cl) Cl a C) H CD H Ft H- tO 0 lCD IX H CD CD H 0 C) CD CD Ft CD CD CD CD C) CC C) CD CD Ft H <) CD H CD H CD 0 H HFt C) U) CD CD ¢ CD H H H HC) CD Cl H CD CD < Ft CD 0 Ft CD Ft CC H 0 Ft CC CD CD H H CD H CD Cl Ft CC CD C) H CD 5 Ft H- U- O 0 CC 0 CD 0 C) ti H) Ft H0 CD HCD Ft 0 CD C) CL 0 CD C) H Ft CC 0 H 0 C) H Ft CD CD Ft CC CD CD Ft Cl CD Ft CD H0 CD CD H H CD Ft H HCD H CD Ct CD CD 0 CC Ft 5 H CD H C) H- C) ¢ Cl H- C) 0 H HCD H 0 CD Cl Ft CC CD H H H) 0 C) 0 H Cl H- C) H a) I H H CX) CD Ft C/) Cl Hi H H t- CD CD H CD CD C) H CD CD Ft CD Ft CD Ft 0 H CD HH C) H CD H 0 H HCD CD CD Cl C) CD H- Cl CC CD CD CC 0 C) H Cl S C) H CD H- CD ti CD examined under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he still fails to state a claim. As discussed above, Johnson was treated for his injury and medical needs with an x ray and medication. At moso, was seen by a doctor, plaintiff waited 11 days before he and the x ray taken and medication prescribed did not i.ndicate an injury that was serious requiring more care than provided. Thus, the admitteh allegations ot the Complaint do not show that any delay or denial of treatment was excessive in relation to any stated purpose of jail security and administration, and there is no showing that the actions or inactions of defendant was intended as punishment and retaliation. Cir. 1993) See Hubbard v. 2005); Newkirk v. . Therefore, Taylor, Sheers, 834 399 F.3d 150, F, Supp. 772, 158 63 781 (3d (E.D.Pa. any Fourteenth Amendment claim asserting denial of medical care also must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Finally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3), where a district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim. Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that, dents are dismissed before trial, The Court of where all federal the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so. 14 Hedges v. NJ U] C) U) CD Ft CD CD C C) Ft C) FtC) CD Ft (DC) CDX C) U)U) H- Ft CDX FtC) hi H Cl) C) HFt CD C C) CD ¢ o U) 0 NJ NJ C) CD U) CD CD U] NJ C) U) U) hi CD hi C) hi o C) hi HCD Ft CD o CD C) C) hi C Ft CD C) C hi CD LQ CD C) CD < CD NJ HCD U) C C o C) CD Ft CD Ft CD Ft 0 U) CD HNJ C hi CD U) 0 hi NJ C) U] H NJ NJ cc) C C) CD C) HH C CD N) Ft 0 C) CD C CD Ft C) CD Ft (I) LCD C CD NJ Ft C C) NJ CD H- C) 0 CD CD CD C C) NJ CD H- CD CD C) 0 Ft HU) U) Ft Hhi CD Ft C CD HFt CD C H - CD CD HFt < H C) C) Cr) HI C) 0 C) C) Ft C) H- U) 0 hi Ft C) CD C C) N Ci) U Ft ¢ C C) NJ CD H- o C) Cl) hi CD hi CD C CD C C) Ft CD C C) CD C CD NJ o Ft H- C) hi hi CD o Ft Ft C) CD N o U) hi C) C) C o CD hi CD CD CD 0 Ft C) CD 0 hi Ut) C CD Ft hi C CD C) o o C )l HCD CD CD C) HCD C) C) CD HFt C) C) C - Ft CD C U) N) - C) C) H- C) C o C) C C) NJ CD HC) U) C) * C C) CD H CD C) Ft C CD C C) CD CD < E Ft C) CD Ft HC) CD Ft hi CD C) C) CD NJ D CD NJ C) H- C) Ct) C) CD C C) CD CD. LCD NJ H- LCD C hi C) C) CD Ft 0 hi C) CD CD CD C) CD C 0 CD CD Ft CD C C) Hhi C) L< hi CD C H- C) CD 0 hi hi CL) < Ft C) C C) CD 0 CD CD CD CD CD Ft CD Ft CD C H HC) CD C C) Li- C) hi CD Ft C 0 C) )C HFt HCD CD C) HCD E HNJ NJ hi Ft C C LCD C) C) (N hi Ft H- (I) CD CD CD D hi C) CD Ft E 0 NJ CD H- C NJ CD CD Ft Ft CD C) 0 CD C HFt CD Ft H C) C) NJ C) C) C) C) Hhi C) () NJ NJ U) cc) NJ C) C) (U N) C) C CD C) 0 C)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.