Opinion
CIV NO. 3:18-CV-517
10-02-2019
MICHAEL BENNETT, Plaintiff, v. PRIMECARE MEDICAL INC., et al., Defendants.
(Judge Caputo)
( ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Statement of Facts and of the Case.
On March 5, 2018, Michael Bennett filed a pro se complaint against PrimeCare Medical, Inc., the corporate health care provider that provided medical services to inmates at the Cumberland County Prison and another corporate defendant, Aramark Correctional Services, Inc., which managed food services at the prison. (Doc. 1.) According to Bennett's complaint, in 2016, he was housed in the Cumberland County Prison for approximately 50 days, with his jaws immobilized due to a prior unrelated jaw injury. During this time, Bennett alleged that, with the exception of one occasion when he was offered a high calorie milk shake, his liquid diet was limited to one 8-ounce cup and beef broth, and one 8-ounce cup of chicken broth three times a day. (Id., ¶¶ 15-20.) Bennett claimed that he suffered profound physical and emotional consequences from this meager diet, including dramatic weight loss, headaches, abdominal pain, depression, and fear of death. (Id.) In fact, according to Bennett, he lost 40 pounds or more than 20% of his total body weight during this period of confinement when he was denied adequate nutrition. (Id., ¶ 23.) Based upon these allegations, Bennett brought Eighth Amendment and related state common law tort claims against these two corporate defendants. (Id.) Finding that Bennett's allegation stated a colorable constitutional claim, we denied motions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to renewal of any defenses through properly documented motions for summary judgment. (Docs. 30 and 33.)
On June 14, 2019, the defendants filed summary judgment motions in this case. (Docs. 43 and 46.) These motions were accompanied by what are uncontradicted exhibits that thoroughly rebut Bennett's allegations. These records reveal that Bennett was treated and assessed by medical staff on numerous occasions during his 50 days in the Cumberland County Prison. During this time, medical records disclose that Bennett actually gained weight while on the soft and liquid diet necessitated by his jaw injury. Furthermore, these records indicate that the diet Bennett received was prescribed by the outside doctor who was treating his injured jaw, and indicate that the defendants followed their own policies of scrupulously abiding by the medical instructions they received from Bennett's treating physician.
Bennett has yet to respond to these summary judgment motions, and the time for a response, which was extended twice at his request, has now passed. Thus, on July 9, 2019, we granted Bennett an extension of time until August 30, 2019 in which to respond to these motions while he sought to retain counsel. (Doc. 56.) Bennett then notified us that he was unable to secure the assistance of counsel and requested an second extension of time in which to respond to these motions. (Doc. 57.) We granted this request, in part, and ordered Bennett to respond to the outstanding motions on or before September 27, 2019. (Doc. 58.) That order also informed Thompson that Local Rule 7.6 of the Rules of this Court imposed an affirmative duty on the plaintiff to respond to motions and warned Roberts in clear and precise terms that "Local Rule 7.6 can be applied to grant a motion to dismiss without analysis of the complaint's sufficiency 'if a party fails to comply with the [R]ule after a specific direction to comply from the court.'" Williams v. Lebanon Farms Disposal, Inc., No. 09-1704, 2010 WL 3703808, *1 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2010) (quoting Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (1991)). Therefore, a failure to comply with this direction may result in the motion being deemed unopposed and granted. Id.
Bennett has not responded to these motions and the time for a response, which we twice extended, has now passed. Accordingly, in the absence of any response by Bennett, the motions will be deemed ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the motions be granted and this case dismissed.
II. Discussion
A. Under The Rules of This Court This Motion to Dismiss Should Be Deemed Unopposed and Granted.
At the outset, under the Local Rules of this Court the plaintiff should be deemed to concur in these summary judgment motions, since the plaintiff has failed to timely oppose the motions or otherwise litigate this case. This procedural default completely frustrates and impedes efforts to resolve this matter in a timely and fair fashion, and under the rules of this court warrants dismissal of the action, since Local Rule 7.6 of the Rules of this Court imposes an affirmative duty on the plaintiff to respond to motions and provides that
Any party opposing any motion, other than a motion for summary judgment, shall file a brief in opposition within fourteen (14) days after service of the movant's brief, or, if a brief in support of the motion is not required under these rules, within seven (7) days after service of the motion. Any party who fails to comply with this rule shall be deemed not to oppose such motion. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to limit the authority of the court to grant any motion before expiration of the prescribed period for filing a brief in opposition. A brief in opposition to a motion for summary judgment and LR 56.1 responsive statement, together with any transcripts, affidavits or other relevant documentation, shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the movant's brief.Local Rule 7.6 (emphasis added).
It is now well-settled that "Local Rule 7.6 can be applied to grant a motion to dismiss without analysis of the complaint's sufficiency 'if a party fails to comply with the [R]ule after a specific direction to comply from the court.'" Williams, No. 09-1704, 2010 WL 3703808, at *1 (quoting Stackhouse, 951 F.2d at 30)). In this case, the plaintiff has not complied with the local rules, or this Court's order, by filing a timely response to this motion. Therefore, these procedural defaults by the plaintiff compel the court to consider:
[A] basic truth: we must remain mindful of the fact that "the Federal Rules are meant to be applied in such a way as to promote justice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. Often that will mean that courts should strive to resolve cases on their merits whenever possible. However, justice also requires that the merits of a particular dispute be placed before the court in a timely fashion ...." McCurdy v. American Bd. of Plastic Surgery, 157 F.3d 191, 197 (3d Cir.1998).Lease v. Fishel, 712 F. Supp. 2d 359, 371 (M.D. Pa. 2010).
With this basic truth in mind, we acknowledge a fundamental guiding tenet of our legal system. A failure on our part to enforce compliance with the rules, and impose the sanctions mandated by those rules when the rules are repeatedly breached, "would actually violate the dual mandate which guides this Court and motivates our system of justice: 'that courts should strive to resolve cases on their merits whenever possible [but that] justice also requires that the merits of a particular dispute be placed before the court in a timely fashion.'" Id. Therefore, we are obliged to ensure that one party's refusal to comply with the rules does not lead to an unjustified prejudice to those parties who follow the rules.
These basic tenets of fairness apply here. In this case, the plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 7.6 by filing a timely response to these dispositive motions. This failure now compels us to apply the sanction called for under Rule 7.6 and deem these motions unopposed.
B. Dismissal of this Case Is Also Warranted Under Rule 41.
Beyond the requirements imposed by the local rules of this court, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a court to dismiss a civil action for failure to prosecute, stating that: "If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Decisions regarding dismissal of actions for failure to prosecute rest in the sound discretion of the Court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Emerson v. Thiel College, 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). That discretion, however, while broad is governed by certain factors, commonly referred to as Poulis factors. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has noted:
To determine whether the District Court abused its discretion [in dismissing a case for failure to prosecute], we evaluate its balancing of the following factors: (1) the extent of the party's personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness
of the claim or defense. Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir.1984).Emerson, 296 F.3d at 190.
In exercising this discretion "there is no 'magic formula' that we apply to determine whether a District Court has abused its discretion in dismissing for failure to prosecute." Lopez v. Cousins, 435 F. App'x 113, 116 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Briscoe v. Klem, 538 F.3d 252 (3d Cir. 2008)). Therefore, "[i]n balancing the Poulis factors, [courts] do not [employ] a . . . 'mechanical calculation' to determine whether a District Court abused its discretion in dismissing a plaintiff's case. Mindek v. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir. 1992)." Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d at 263. Consistent with this view, it is well-settled that " 'no single Poulis factor is dispositive,' Ware, 322 F.3d at 222, [and it is] clear that 'not all of the Poulis factors need be satisfied in order to dismiss a complaint.' " Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d at 263 (quoting Mindek, 964 F.2d at 1373). Moreover, recognizing the broad discretion conferred upon the district court in making judgments weighing these six factors, the court of appeals has frequently sustained such dismissal orders where there has been a pattern of dilatory conduct by a pro se litigant who is not amenable to any lesser sanction. See, e.g., Emerson v. Thiel College, supra; Tillio v. Mendelsohn, 256 F. App'x 509 (3d Cir. 2007); Reshard v. Lankenau Hospital, 256 F. App'x 506 (3d Cir. 2007); Azubuko v. Bell National Organization, 243 F. App'x 728 (3d Cir. 2007).
In this case, a dispassionate assessment of the Poulis factors weighs heavily in favor of dismissing this action. At the outset, a consideration of the first Poulis factor, the extent of the party's personal responsibility, shows that the delays in this case are entirely attributable to the plaintiff, who has failed to abide by court orders, and has otherwise neglected to litigate this case, or respond to defense motions.
Similarly, the second Poulis factor-the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to abide by court orders-also calls for dismissal of this action. Indeed, this factor-the prejudice suffered by the party seeking sanctions-is entitled to great weight and careful consideration. As the Third Circuit has observed:
"Evidence of prejudice to an adversary would bear substantial weight in support of a dismissal or default judgment." Adams v. Trustees of N.J. Brewery Employees' Pension Trust Fund, 29 F.3d 863, 873-74 (3d Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, prejudice includes "the irretrievable loss of evidence, the inevitable dimming of witnesses' memories, or the excessive and possibly irremediable burdens or costs imposed on the opposing party." Id. at 874 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). . . . However, prejudice is not limited to "irremediable" or "irreparable" harm. Id.; see also Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218, 222 (3d Cir.2003); Curtis T. Bedwell & Sons, Inc. v. Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 683, 693-94 (3d Cir.1988). It also includes "the burden imposed by impeding a party's ability to prepare effectively a full and complete trial strategy." Ware, 322 F.3d at 222.Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d at 259-60.
In this case, the plaintiff's failure to litigate this claim or comply with court orders now wholly frustrates and delays the resolution of this action. In such instances, the defendants are plainly prejudiced by the plaintiff's continuing inaction and dismissal of the case clearly rests in the discretion of the trial judge. Tillio, 256 F. App'x 509 (failure to timely serve pleadings compels dismissal); Reshard, 256 F. App'x 506 (failure to comply with discovery compels dismissal); Azubuko, 243 F. App'x 728 (failure to file amended complaint prejudices defense and compels dismissal).
When one considers the third Poulis factor-the history of dilatoriness on the plaintiff's part-it becomes clear that dismissal of this action is now appropriate. In this regard, it is clear that "'[e]xtensive or repeated delay or delinquency constitutes a history of dilatoriness, such as consistent non-response . . . , or consistent tardiness in complying with court orders.' Adams, 29 F.3d at 874." Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d at 260-61 (some citations omitted). Here, the plaintiff has ignored and failed to respond to a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff has also failed to timely file pleadings, and has not complied with an order of the court. Thus, the plaintiff's conduct displays "[e]xtensive or repeated delay or delinquency [and conduct which] constitutes a history of dilatoriness, such as consistent non-response . . . , or consistent tardiness in complying with court orders." Adams, 29 F.3d at 874.
The fourth Poulis factor-whether the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith-also cuts against the plaintiff in this case. In this setting we must assess whether this conduct reflects mere inadvertence or willful conduct, in that it involved "strategic," "intentional or self-serving behavior," and not mere negligence. Adams v. Trs. of N.J. Brewery Emps.' Pension Trust Fund, 29 F.3d 863, 875 (3d Cir.1994). At this juncture, when the plaintiff has failed to comply with instructions of the Court directing the plaintiff to take specific actions in this case, and has violated the local rules, the Court is compelled to conclude that the plaintiff's actions are not accidental or inadvertent but instead reflect an intentional disregard for this case and the Court's instructions.
While Poulis also enjoins us to consider a fifth factor, the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, cases construing Poulis agree that in a situation such as this case, where we are confronted by a pro se litigant who will not comply with the rules or court orders, lesser sanctions may not be an effective alternative. See, e.g., Briscoe, 538 F.3d at 262-63; Emerson, 296 F.3d at 191. This case presents such a situation where the plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant severely limits the ability of the court to utilize other lesser sanctions to ensure that this litigation progresses in an orderly fashion. In any event, by entering our prior orders, and counseling the plaintiff on his obligations in this case, we have endeavored to use lesser sanctions, but to no avail. The plaintiff still declines to obey court orders, and otherwise ignores his responsibilities as a litigant. Since lesser sanctions have been tried, and have failed, only the sanction of dismissal remains available to the Court.
Finally, under Poulis, we are cautioned to consider one other factor, the meritoriousness of the plaintiff's claims. In our view, however, consideration of this factor cannot save this particular plaintiff's claims, since the plaintiff is now wholly non-compliant with his obligations as a litigant. The plaintiff cannot refuse to address the merits of his claims, and then assert the untested merits of these claims as grounds for denying a motion to sanction him. Furthermore, it is well-settled that " 'no single Poulis factor is dispositive,' Ware, 322 F.3d at 222, [and it is] clear that 'not all of the Poulis factors need be satisfied in order to dismiss a complaint.' Mindek, 964 F.2d at 1373." Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d at 263. Therefore, the untested merits of the non-compliant plaintiff's claims, standing alone, cannot prevent imposition of sanctions.
In any event, Bennett's claims appear to fail as a matter of law, yet another factor which favors dismissal of this lawsuit. The flaws in these claims are discussed below.
C. Bennett's Claims Fail on Their Merits
Finally, a merits analysis of Bennett's claims reveals that these claims appear to fail as a matter of law based upon the uncontested facts presented by the defendants in their summary judgment motions. Corporate Eighth Amendment claims arising in a custodial setting must meet exacting legal standards. There are several legal hurdles that Bennett must surmount to prove these Eighth Amendment claims. At the outset these legal hurdles are a function of the Eighth Amendment itself. As the Third Circuit has observed:
The Eighth Amendment protects against infliction of "cruel and unusual punishment." However, "not every governmental action affecting the interests or well-being of a prisoner is subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny." Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986). "After incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment." Id. (citation and internal quotations omitted). "It is obduracy and wantonness, not inadvertence or error in good faith, that characterize the conduct prohibited by the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, whether that conduct occurs in connection with establishing conditions of confinement, supplying medical needs, or restoring official control over a tumultuous cellblock." Id. Resolution of an Eighth Amendment claim therefore "mandate[s] an inquiry into a prison official's state of mind." Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 299, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). Two considerations define that inquiry. We must first determine if the deprivation was sufficiently serious to fall within the Eighth Amendment's zone of protections. Id. at 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321. If not, our inquiry is at an end. However, if the deprivation is sufficiently serious, we must determine if the officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Id. In other words, we must determine if they were motivated by a desire to inflict unnecessary and wanton pain. "What is necessary to establish an 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain ...' varies according to the nature of the alleged constitutional violation." Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992).Fuentes v. Wagner, 206 F.3d 335, 344-45 (3d Cir. 2000).
In the instant case, Bennett premises his Eighth Amendment claims against PrimeCare and Aramark on alleged indifference by these corporate actors to his medical and nutritional needs. Turning first to Bennett's Eighth Amendment correctional medical claims, to establish such claims an inmate must plead and prove facts which display "deliberate indifference" to the inmate's medical needs. To sustain such a claim, an inmate must plead facts which:
[M]eet two requirements: (1) "the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious;" and (2) the "prison official must have a sufficiently culpable state of mind." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (quotation marks and citations omitted). In prison conditions cases, "that state of mind is one of 'deliberate indifference' to inmate health or safety." Id. "Deliberate indifference" is a subjective standard under Farmer-the prison official-defendant must actually have known or been aware of the excessive risk to inmate safety.Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 125 (3d Cir. 2001).
These principles apply with particular force to Eighth Amendment claims premised upon inadequate medical care. In the medical context, a constitutional violation under the Eighth Amendment occurs only when officials are deliberately indifferent to an inmate's serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). To establish a violation of his constitutional right to adequate medical care in accordance with this standard, an inmate is required to point to evidence that demonstrates (1) a serious medical need, and (2) acts or omissions by prison officials that indicate deliberate indifference to that need. Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999). Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need involves the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. Such indifference may be evidenced by an intentional refusal to provide care, delayed provision of medical treatment for non-medical reasons, denial of prescribed medical treatment, denial of reasonable requests for treatment that results in suffering or risk of injury, Durmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 68 (3d Cir. 1993), or "persistent conduct in the face of resultant pain and risk of permanent injury," White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 109 (3d Cir. 1990).
However, it is also clear that the mere misdiagnosis of a condition or medical need, or negligent treatment provided for a condition, is not actionable as an Eighth Amendment claim because medical malpractice is not a constitutional violation. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. "Indeed, prison authorities are accorded considerable latitude in the diagnosis and treatment of prisoners." Durmer, 991 F.2d at 67 (citations omitted). Furthermore, in a prison medical context, deliberate indifference is generally not found when some significant level of medical care has been offered to the inmate. Thus, such complaints fail as constitutional claims under § 1983 since "the exercise by a doctor of his professional judgment is never deliberate indifference. See e.g., Brown v. Borough of Chambersburg, 903 F.2d 274, 278 (3d Cir. 1990) ('[A]s long as a physician exercises professional judgment his behavior will not violate a prisoner's constitutional rights')". Gindraw v. Dendler, 967 F.Supp. 833, 836 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
Inmate complaints relating to the denial of adequate nutrition, in turn, are treated as condition of confinement claims under the Eighth Amendment. However, the same broad guiding principles apply to inmate complaints regarding their conditions of confinement. "When an Eighth Amendment claim arises in the context of a challenge to conditions of confinement, we must determine if prison officials acted with 'deliberate indifference' to the inmate's health. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The objective inquiry is whether the inmate was 'denied the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.' Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9, 112 S.Ct. 995." Fuentes v. Wagner, 206 F.3d 335, 345 (3d Cir. 2000). In this setting, it is clear that:
The Eighth Amendment prohibits punishments inconsistent with "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (quoting Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958)). Conditions of prison confinement violate the Eighth Amendment only if they "deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981)Atkinson v. Taylor, 316 F.3d 257, 272 (3d Cir. 2003).
Thus, these claims also require proof of both a culpable state of mind, and objective proof of physical conditions of confinement which shock the conscience and depart from minimal civilized standards of life's necessities. As the United States Supreme Court has observed:
The Constitution "does not mandate comfortable prisons," Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2400, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981), but neither does it permit inhumane ones, and it is now settled that "the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment," Helling, 509 U.S. at 31, 113 S.Ct. at 2480. In its prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments," the Eighth Amendment places restraints on prison officials, who may not, for example, use
excessive physical force against prisoners. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). The Amendment also imposes duties on these officials, who must provide humane conditions of confinement; prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must "take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates," Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-527, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3200, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984).Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1976, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (emphasis added.).
By specifically identifying a constitutional obligation to provide adequate food to inmates, the courts have acknowledged that the denial of adequate food to prisoners can, on occasion, rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. Yet, "while prisoners are guaranteed a nutritionally adequate diet under the Eighth Amendment, see Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 571 (10th Cir. 1980), there is no constitutional right to hot meals. See Brown-El v. Delo, 969 F.2d 644, 648 (8th Cir. 1992) (finding frivolous prisoner's claim that his constitutional rights were violated when he was served cold food)." Laufgas v. Speziale, 263 F.App'x. 192, 198 (3d Cir. 2008). Similarly, the "purported deprivation of a single meal is not of such magnitude as to rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Robles v. Coughlin, 725 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1983) (only a substantial deprivation of food to a prisoner sets forth a viable Eighth Amendment claim)." Lindsey v. O'Connor, 327 F.App'x. 319, 321 (3d Cir. 2009). However, when it is alleged that officials have, in a systematic way, denied nutrition to an inmate over a span of weeks, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated. "A systematic failure to provide food in sufficient quantity to maintain normal health violates the Eighth Amendment. See Phelps v. Kapnolas, 308 F.3d 180, 187 (2d Cir. 2002) (inmate alleged he had been placed on nutritionally inadequate restricted diet for fourteen days); Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849, 853-56 (7th Cir. 1999) (alleged deprivation of food was sufficiently serious and prison officials' deliberate indifference was obvious); Simmons v. Cook, 154 F.3d 805, 807-09 (8th Cir. 1998) (inmates were deprived of four consecutive meals); Robles v. Coughlin, 725 F.2d 12, 15-16 (2nd Cir. 1983) (deprivation of meals for twelve days during a fifty-three day period); Cunningham v. Jones, 567 F.2d 653, 660 (6th Cir. 1977) (remanding for consideration of whether one meal per day which was provided was nutritionally adequate to maintain normal health); Dearman v. Woodson, 429 F.2d 1288, 1290 (10th Cir. 1970) (refusal to provide food during a fifty and a half hour period)." Feliciano v. Burset, CIV. 79-4 PG, 2010 WL 4922700 (D.P.R. Dec. 2, 2010).
In practice, then, judgments regarding these Eighth Amendment claims frequently are a matter of degree and often turn on the nature and extent of the alleged deprivation. However, viable Eighth Amendment claims typically have been found only when adequate nutrition is denied to a prisoner over a period of time which spans days or weeks. See Zanders v. Ferko, 439 F. App'x 158, 160 (3d Cir. 2011) See also Smith v. Wilson, No. 3:13-CV-771, 2014 WL 4626664, at *5-6 (M.D. Pa. June 26, 2014), report and recommendation adopted in part, rejected in part, No. 3:13-CV-771, 2014 WL 4630713 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2014).
Beyond these guiding Eighth Amendment principles, there are a separate set of legal guideposts which apply to claims, like those made here by Bennett, which seek to hold some institutional or organizational defendant liable for civil rights violations. The principles which define institutional, agency civil rights liability are both exacting and well-settled. As we have observed in the past:
In Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) ("Monell "), the Supreme Court held that a municipality may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a constitutional injury that directly resulted from a municipality's policy, custom, or practice. Id. at 695, 98 S.Ct. 2018. Accordingly, a Monell claim seeks to impose municipal liability for a constitutional injury that was causally connected to a municipal policy, custom, or practice. See id.; see also Carreno v. City of Newark, 834 F.Supp.2d 217, 231 (D.N.J.2011). "Under Monell, a municipality cannot be subjected to liability solely because injuries were inflicted by its agents or employees." Jiminez v. All American Rathskeller, Inc., 503 F.3d 247, 249 (3d Cir.2007). Instead, "it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983." Id. (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018).It is essential to a Monell claim that there be a "direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation" in order to establish municipal liability. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989).Hunter v. Prisbe, 984 F. Supp. 2d 345, 353 (M.D. Pa. 2013).
While Monell initially addressed the question of governmental institutional liability, subsequent case law has extended these legal tenets to claims of corporate institutional civil rights liability. On this score it is well-settled that:
[P]rivate corporations that contract with the state to provide services also cannot be subjected to liability under § 1983 on the basis of respondeat superior. See Natale v. Camden County Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 583-84 (3d Cir. 2003); see also Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-94 (1978) (holding that a municipality cannot be liable under § 1983 on a theory of respondeat superior). Instead, in order to hold a private corporation liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that he suffered a constitutional deprivation as a result of an official corporate policy or custom. Natale, 318 F.3d at 583-84; see also Bd. of the County Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997); Griggs v. Dauphin County Prison, No. 1:06-0823; 2008 WL 2518090, at *4 (M.D. Pa. June 19, 2008); Miller v. City of Phila., No. 96-3578, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17514, 1996 WL 683827, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 1996) (in order to establish liability for a private corporation, a plaintiff must show that the corporation, "with 'deliberate indifference to the consequences, established and maintained a policy, practice or custom which directly caused [plaintiff's] constitutional harm.' ") (quoting Stoneking v. Bradford Area Sch. Dist., 882 F.2d 720, 725 (3d Cir. 1989)). As the Third Circuit has explained, a
policy or custom can be established in two ways. Policy is made when a "decisionmaker possessing final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action" issues an official proclamation, policy, or edict. A course of conduct is considered to be a "custom" when, though not authorized by law, "such practices of state officials [are] so permanent and well-settled" as to virtually
constitute law.
Beck v. City of Pittsburgh, 89 F.3d 966, 971 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1480 (3d Cir. 1990)). Custom may also be established by evidence that demonstrates knowledge or acquiescence. Beck, 89 F.3d at 971 (citing Fletcher v. O'Donnell, 867 F.2d 791, 793 (3d Cir. 1989)).
Midgley v. McMillian, No. 3:13-CV-1941, 2017 WL 3431917, at *8 (M.D. Pa. July 13, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:13-CV-1941, 2017 WL 3427981 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2017).
Mason v. PrimeCare Med., Inc., No. 1:14-CV-1680, 2017 WL 1386198, at *8 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2017).
Judged by these legal benchmarks, and with our assessment of these claims informed by the uncontested facts proffered by the defendants, Bennett's Eighth Amendment corporate liability claims appear to fail on several scores.
First, the undisputed evidence rebuts Bennett's claims of medical deliberate indifference. Quite the contrary, it seems clear that Bennett was frequently seen and treated, both by PrimeCare staff and by outside physicians during his brief incarceration at the Cumberland County Prison. The nature, scope, and extent of this treatment undermines any claim of deliberate indifference by the medical defendants.
Second, the factual premise underlying Bennett's complaint—his allegation that he suffered a severe physical injury the loss of 40 pounds or more than 20% of his total body weight—is simply false. Rather than losing weight, Bennett actually gained weight while confined at the Cumberland County Prison and placed on this medically prescribed diet.
Finally, the undisputed evidence reveals that a key element for corporate constitutional tort liability—a constitutionally infirm custom, policy, or practice—is missing here. Instead, it appears that the practice of both PrimeCare and Aramark was to follow the medical course prescribed by Bennett's treating physician. That is what these corporate defendants did in Bennett's case, and the end result was that Bennett gained weight while in their care and custody, an immutable fact that completely contradicts Bennett's legal claims.
In sum, then, this merits analysis reveals that Bennett's claims against these defendants likely fail as a matter of law. Therefore, we find that all of the Poulis factors call for dismissal of this case.
III. Recommendation
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the defendants' Summary Judgment Motions (Docs. 43 and 46) be GRANTED.
The Parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties,
written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Submitted this 2d day of October 2019.
S/ Martin C . Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge