Basemore v. Voorstad, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants Defendant Beth Herb’s motion to dismiss claims arising from the alleged termination of Plaintiff William Basemore’s hormone treatment while incarcerated. The court dismisses the claims against Herb with prejudice, defers ruling on the remaining medical defendants’ motions to dismiss pending evidence concerning opt-out of a bankruptcy plan’s third-party release, and deems Plaintiff’s motion for relevance withdrawn.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against Herb because she did not allege Herb's personal involvement in the alleged denial or termination of medical treatment, and an administrator is not liable merely because of her supervisory or administrative position.
2. Plaintiff failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment supervisory-liability or failure-to-train claim against Herb because the complaint did not identify a deficient supervisory practice, an unreasonable risk known to Herb, deliberate indifference to that risk, or a causal connection to an underlying constitutional violation.
3. The court could not determine the Medical Defendants' motions to dismiss at that time because the record did not establish whether Plaintiff had properly opted out of the bankruptcy plan's Third-Party Release.
4. Plaintiff's motion for relevance was deemed withdrawn because Plaintiff did not file the brief required by Local Rule 7.5.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff stated a constitutional claim against Defendant Herb based on her position as a correctional health-care administrator and alleged failure to train staff.
2. Whether the court could resolve the Medical Defendants' motions to dismiss based on the bankruptcy plan's Third-Party Release before determining whether Plaintiff properly opted out.
3. Whether Plaintiff's unsupported motion for relevance should be deemed withdrawn under the Middle District of Pennsylvania's briefing rule.

Disposition

other