GLD-317 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-2167
___________
MICHAEL BEARAM,
Appellant
v.
GEORGE C. WIGEN, Warden; DR. CUTLER; J. HUBLER, LPN; C. SMITH, PA; J.
MILLER, Case Manager.
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 3:13-cv-00050)
District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 3, 2013
Before: FUENTES, FISHER and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 7, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Michael Bearam, a prisoner at the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center
(MVCC) in Pennsylvania, appeals pro se the dismissal of a civil rights action brought
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unnamed Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971), alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. For the reasons that
follow, we will summarily affirm. See LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
In his complaint, 1 Bearam alleged that he has a brain tumor, a
pheochromocytoma, 2 and an advanced degree of kidney damage. He alleged that the
only treatment he received related to these conditions is blood pressure medication, and
that an array of prison doctors failed to treat his condition, with some even denying the
existence of his tumors. The District Court dismissed the amended complaint for failure
to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s
dismissal for failure to state a claim under a plenary standard. See Lazaridis v. Wehmer,
591 F.3d 666, 670 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Dismissal is appropriate where the
pleader has not alleged “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The standard
requires “a two-part analysis.” See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d
Cir. 2009). First, the court must separate the complaint’s factual allegations from its
legal conclusions, taking only the factual allegations as true. Id. Second, the court must
determine whether the plaintiff has alleged facts “sufficient to show that the plaintiff has
1
Bearam’s original complaint was screened by the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, who recommended it be dismissed with leave to amend. Bearam filed a
“Motion to Amend” which the District Court treated as an amended complaint.
Construing his filings liberally, we treat both documents as a single, amended complaint.
2
A pheochromocytoma is a kind of tumor affecting the adrenal glands. See STEDMAN’S
MEDICAL DICTIONARY 1480 (28th ed. 2006).
2
a plausible claim for relief.” Id at 211. “We may also consider documents attached to
the complaint.” Huertas v. Galazy Asset Management, 641 F.3d 28, 32 (3d Cir. 2011)
(per curiam). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Murray v. Bledsoe,
650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
To state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation
of the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must show 1) deliberate indifference by prison
officials to 2) the prisoner’s serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
106 (1976). “To act with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is to recklessly
disregard a substantial risk of serious harm.” Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 330 (3d
Cir. 2009). Where prison officials know of the prisoner’s serious medical need,
deliberate indifference will be found where the official “(1) knows of a prisoner’s need
for medical treatment but intentionally refuses to provide it; (2) delays necessary medical
treatment based on a non-medical reason; or (3) prevents a prisoner from receiving
needed or recommended medical treatment.” Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d
Cir. 1999). In order to find deliberate indifference, “the official must both be aware of
facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994).
We may easily affirm the dismissal as to three of the five defendants, as “J.
Hubler, LPN; C. Smith, PA; J. Miller, Case Manager” appear nowhere in the complaint
other than the caption. See Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding
3
that personal involvement was a necessary element in a civil rights action against an
individual government defendant). Almost as easily, we may affirm the dismissal as to
George C. Wigen, warden of MVCC, as his sole involvement appears to be in reviewing
Bearam’s administrative complaint related to this suit. See id. Additionally, as
nonmedical personnel, Wigen is entitled to presume the competence of medical staff in
treating a prisoner, meaning that his conduct cannot, without much more, amount to
“deliberate indifference.” See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir. 2004).
The final defendant is Dr. Cutler. Dr. Cutler’s involvement is unclear. The factual
allegations against Dr. Cutler, stripped of legal conclusions not entitled to the
presumption of truth, are that:
Dr. Cutler, recommends High Blood Pressure Pills, which are totally
inadequate to remedy my Kidney or Tumor problem. Dr. Cutler refuses to
perform Surgery so as to remove the Tumor. Further, Dr. Cutler, refuses a
Blood Transfusion . . . refuses to conduct an MRI, CT scan, or Surgery to
remove the Tumor in the Brain. Dr. Cutler said: ‘the Blood test shows
negative.’ Inspite of my pain, slow lost of eye sight, swelling in the chest,
groin area, all of which I am constantly complaining of to the Medical
Staff. . . Dr. Cutler made clear that I do have a High Blood pressure. What
Dr. Cutler is refusing to acknowledge is the Pheochromocytoma which is
the root cause of my High Blood pressure. Dr. Cutler told me to keep
looking at the ‘call out’ for my name.
Amended Complaint at 2-3 (errors in original). Taking these allegations as true,
they do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference, and are at best an allegation of
medical malpractice. See Spruill, 372 F.3d at 235 (“Allegations of medical malpractice
are not sufficient to establish a Constitutional violation.”).
4
Bearam asserted that Dr. Cutler either misdiagnosed or refused to diagnose his
tumors, and did not order additional testing after some initial diagnostics 3 suggested that
Bearam did not have tumors. Without more, the decision not to order additional
diagnostic tests will not constitute deliberate indifference, as it suggests mere negligence,
if that. See Gamble, 429 U.S. at 106. Bearam’s allegation that Dr. Cutler is “refusing to
acknowledge” his tumors does not substitute for a plausible allegation that Dr. Cutler
actually knew certain tumors existed and refused to treat them. See Schieber v. City of
Philadelphia, 320 F.3d 409, 421 (3d Cir. 2003). Here, we have instead an allegation that
Dr. Cutler performed some investigation and determined that Bearam does not have the
condition he thinks he has; while Dr. Cutler could conceivably be wrong, he cannot
consciously disregard a risk he has found reason to believe does not exist. There are no
facts to draw an inference of a substantial risk of serious harm, and Dr. Cutler has
accordingly drawn the opposite inference. 4
Finding no substantial question to be presented by this appeal, we will summarily
affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3
In addition to the allegations relating to Dr. Cutler himself, the complaint and the
documents attached also suggest that multiple MRIs were performed at a previous prison,
that while at MVCC additional urinalysis and blood tests have been performed, and that
Bearam saw a nephrologist, with the result that no evidence of tumors has been found. It
is not clear which of these tests were ordered by or reviewed by Dr. Cutler personally,
beyond the blood test referenced in the text.
4
Under the circumstances presented here, where the plaintiff has already amended his
complaint once to allege deliberate indifference, the District Court was not obliged to
give Bearam additional leave to amend. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293
F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
5