Santanyo Lewis v. Dr. Laurel R. Harry et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted Santanyo Lewis's motions to extend time and to file a second amended complaint, but dismissed the second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous, malicious, and/or failing to state a claim. The court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissed most claims with prejudice, and dismissed claims concerning current medical treatment at SCI-Coal Township without prejudice to pursuing them in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The court also denied the request for a temporary restraining order without prejudice to seeking appropriate relief in that district.

Holdings

1. The second amended complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous, malicious, and/or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. The allegations against Nurse Beers did not state a sufficient Eighth Amendment claim because she essentially followed Dr. Chang's progress notes, and the pleadings and records did not establish that her conduct was unreasonable or inappropriate.
3. Any Eighth Amendment claim against Nurse Beers based on delayed treatment attributable to the transfer checklist was precluded because the screening nurse reviewed the relevant medical records and independently decided not to refer them for preparation of a treatment plan.
4. The allegations concerning failure to supervise or adequately review others' conduct did not establish the required personal involvement and, to the extent they could be construed to overcome that deficiency, still failed because Lewis was under the care of a physician.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Lewis's proposed second amended complaint stated a claim sufficient to avoid dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
2. Whether the allegations against Nurse Beers concerning the transfer checklist and delayed treatment stated an Eighth Amendment claim.
3. Whether the allegations against other defendants established personal involvement through failure to supervise or review the conduct of others.
4. Whether Lewis was entitled to a temporary restraining order or other injunctive relief in this action.

Disposition

other