Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-23-2007
Iseley v. Talaber
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2540
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Iseley v. Talaber" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1073.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1073
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-2540
CHARLES ISELEY,
Appellant
v.
JOHN TALABER; JEFFREY BEARD; WILLIAM STICKMAN;
NEAL MECHLING; PHS INC; WHS INC; ASG INC; JOAN DELIE;
EDWARD SWIERCZEWSKI; CAROL A. SCIRE, Grievance Coordinator;
DIANE MANSON; DON SKUNDA; EUGENE GINCHEREAU;
ROBERT TRETINIK; HERBIK; GARY GALLUCCI; JOHN DOE;
JEFFREY BOWDEN; JANE DOE; DAVID YANAK; BUCKS COUNTY;
DOC; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; KAREN DIAZ
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Civil Action No. 04-cv-00861
(Honorable Yvette Kane)
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 18, 2007
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: May 23, 2007)
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Charles Iseley, a Pennsylvania inmate, was diagnosed with Hepatitis-C
(“HCV”) in 1998. In 2000, Iseley filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at D.C. Civ. No. 00-
cv-04839, alleging that the failure of the Commonwealth Department of Corrections
(“DOC”) to offer him treatment for HCV constituted cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. He also alleged that he was denied medical care in
retaliation for having filed grievances and lawsuits against corrections staff. After the
DOC changed its policy on HCV treatment, Iseley moved for a preliminary injunction to
force the DOC to provide him with prescription drug treatment; however, Iseley would
not consent to psychological testing and limited disclosure as required by the DOC's
treatment protocols. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants and
we affirmed in Iseley v. Dragovich, 90 Fed. Appx. 577, 582 (3d Cir. January 6, 2004)
(nonprecedential opinion).
In 2002, while incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Greene
(“SCI-Greene”), Iseley again attempted to get treatment for his HCV. He requested
pegylated interferon, a drug for the treatment of HCV, but was refused. Prison officials
informed him that interferon, a different HCV drug, was the only treatment that would be
available to him. Again, however, Iseley refused to consent to psychological counseling
and disclosure of his medical records as required for treatment with interferon, and so he
was denied treatment. Medical personnel also informed counselors, prison guards and
other prisoners that Iseley suffered from HCV.
2
Aggrieved by these decisions, in October 2002, Iseley filed another civil rights
action, this time in United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
at D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-01709. Iseley sued Commonwealth defendants as well as the
medical provider at SCI-Greene and its employees and officers, alleging, in pertinent part,
that prison authorities and doctors failed to treat his HCV in violation of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments, the medical defendants' release of information regarding his
HCV status violated his right to privacy, and the refusal to treat his HCV was in
retaliation for his failure to consent to psychological treatment and disclosure of his
medical information. Iseley also alleged that the defendants had breached a contract. The
District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants and we affirmed in Iseley v.
Beard, 200 Fed. Appx. 137 (3d Cir. October 3, 2006) (nonprecedential opinion). In a
footnote, we rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that Iseley was collaterally estopped
from bringing these claims, but we did so on the ground that the Commonwealth had
failed to raise the defense in the district court in the first instance. Id. at 142 n.5.
In April 2004, Iseley filed the instant civil rights action in United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Again he contended that he has not
received adequate medical treatment for his HCV condition, including antiviral drug
therapy. In addition to seeking money damages, Iseley sought an order directing the
defendants to provide medical treatment for his Hepatitis C without a psychological
evaluation. The Commonwealth defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, contending
that, in the prior Eastern District case, Iseley also alleged deliberate indifference to his
3
Hepatitis C condition. He was therefore precluded from re-litigating the issues already
decided in that case. The remaining defendants also filed motions to dismiss or for
summary judgment.
In an order entered on March 31, 2005, the District Court granted these motions
and dismissed the complaint. Pursuant to Witkowski v. Welch, 173 F.3d 192, 199 (3d
Cir. 1999), four factors must be present for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply: (1)
the issue decided in the prior action must be identical to the one presented in the later
action; (2) the prior action resulted in a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against
whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to the prior action, and (4) the party
against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the
issue in the prior action. The District Court reasoned that all four of these factors were
met. In both actions Iseley claimed that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical need for HCV treatment. In both actions the issue for decision, factor
(1), was whether a denial of treatment that was based on a refusal to consent to the
requisite screening violated the Eighth Amendment if the regulation at issue was
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.1 Factors (2)-(4) also plainly were
satisfied, and Iseley’s privacy rights violation claim could not be maintained against a
1
Iseley claimed that the defendants violated his rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, and that the defendants had breached a
contract and violated his right to privacy. Nevertheless, the pivotal claim was the Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claim.
4
Jane Doe defendant. The District Court denied a timely motion for reconsideration in an
order entered on March 31, 2006. Iseley appeals.
We will affirm. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The general
rule is that we exercise plenary review of a decision to apply collateral estoppel. See Jean
Alexander Cosmetics, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 458 F.3d 244, 248 (3d Cir. 2006). Issue
preclusion, or collateral estoppel, bars relitigation of issues adjudicated in a prior action.
The policy behind the doctrine is that “a losing litigant deserves no rematch after a defeat
fairly suffered, in adversarial proceedings, on an issue identical in substance to the one he
subsequently seeks to raise.” Swineford v. Snyder County Pennsylvania, 15 F.3d 1258,
1266 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501
U.S. 104, 107 (1991)).
As explained by the District Court, factors (2)-(4) plainly are satisfied. Iseley was
the plaintiff in the prior actions, he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue or
issues, and twice there have been decisions on the merits. As to factor (1), the issues in
the instant action are identical not only to those in the prior Eastern District action, but
also to those in the prior Western District action, all of which is plain from the respective
prior District Court decisions and our two prior nonprecedential decisions, Iseley v.
Dragovich, 90 Fed. Appx. 577, and Iseley v. Beard, 200 Fed. Appx. 137. In Dragovich,
we held that the defendants did not act with deliberate indifference by not allowing Iseley
to participate in the Hepatitis C protocol in 2000 and that he was not denied medical care
in retaliation for having filed grievances and lawsuits against prison officials. In Beard,
5
we held that conditioning interferon treatment for Hepatitis-C (HCV) on Iseley's consent
to the release of his medical records and concomitant psychological treatment was not an
Eighth Amendment violation, and that the non-medical defendants did not violate the
Eighth Amendment by failing to act to secure him the proper treatment.
In short, Iseley seeks treatment for his Hepatitis C from the Department of
Corrections, but on his own terms. The fundamental facts and issues for decision are the
same.2 Under both the January 2000 and January 2002 protocols, the inmate has to be
2
To illustrate, in Beard we stated:
Iseley's claim that he was denied treatment for HCV is, based on his own
admissions, not true. Rather, he refused interferon treatment because he
would not consent to the release of his medical records and concomitant
psychological treatment as required by DOC [Department of Corrections]
policy. Iseley claims that psychological treatment was not necessary for
interferon treatment and that prison authorities' insistence that he submit to
counseling forces him to either suffer the imposition of unwanted treatment,
or be denied treatment for a serious medical condition. He has raised this
argument before, see Dragovich, 90 Fed. Appx. at 580 n.3, and we found it
unpersuasive. It is still unpersuasive. The DOC's requirement that
prisoners undergoing interferon treatment submit to psychological
evaluation and treatment is a reasonable inclusion in the HCV drug
treatment protocol. According to Iseley's own materials, side effects of
interferon include severe depression and suicidal thoughts. Because of
these side effects, the DOC protocols for HCV treatment exclude those
suffering depression, psychosis, bipolar disorder from interferon treatment.
The inclusion of psychological evaluation and counseling in the DOC's
treatment protocol is an exercise of sound medical judgment; not, as Iseley
contends, an instance where necessary medical treatment has been delayed
or denied for a non-medical reason. Iseley has a different opinion about
the matter and has refused to participate in treatment, but the
Commonwealth Defendants cannot be held responsible for his
unwillingness to comply with a legitimate treatment protocol.
(continued...)
6
psychologically screened. Iseley will not participate in the psychological screening
required by the protocols, for which reason he has not been treated. He cannot now
relitigate these issues against a slightly different group of identically situated defendants.
In applying collateral estoppel to this, his third, lawsuit, we make clear that each passing
day in which he is incarcerated is not a new event or new denial of treatment which he
may litigate so long as he can continue to identify new personnel to name as defendants.
This is precisely the outcome the collateral estoppel doctrine was intended to prevent.
We will affirm the order of the District Court dismissing the complaint. Iseley’s
motion for leave to file supplemental reply briefs is denied. The medical appellees’
request to remand this matter to the District Court for consideration of an order barring
Iseley from further litigating any issues concerning the Hepatitis C protocol, a request that
was made in their brief, is denied.
2
(...continued)
200 Fed. Appx. at 141-42 (footnotes and citations omitted).
7