DLD-100 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-4055
___________
SAMUEL WILLIAMS,
Appellant
v.
PRISON HEALTH SYSTEM, (PHS); DR. ALLEN SNYDER; NURSE STACY
LATKANICH; ADMINSTRATOR LORI KWISNEK; ANGIE MARHEFKA, Grievance
Coordinator; TONI COLLAND; KRISTEN P. REISINGER, Chief Grievance Officer;
DORINA VARNER, Chief Grievance Officer; SUPERINTENDENT MELVIN S.
LOCKETT; SUPERINTENDENT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, Correctional and
Health Care Administration sued in their individual and official capacities
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-01534)
Magistrate Judge: Honorable Maureen P. Kelly
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
and for Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 26, 2012
Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 3, 2012)
_________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM
Samuel Williams, a Pennsylvania prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the
dismissal of his civil rights complaint. Because the appeal presents no substantial
question, we will summarily affirm.
I.
Williams, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Greensburg (“SCIG”),
filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages based on a claim that the
Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by
deliberately disregarding his health care needs. According to his complaint, Williams
informed SCIG medical staff in or about February 2006 that he had a boil on his face.
Williams claims that Dr. Allen Snyder recommended that the boil be cut open and
drained, but that other members of the medical staff ignored the recommendation and told
Williams that it would go away. In July 2009, Williams requested that a dermatologist
treat the boil, but claims that his request was ignored. In February 2010, after the boil
worsened, Williams was administered a shot for the infection.
Williams also claims that in or about July 2006, he complained to SCIG medical
staff about a “sandy feeling” in his eye, but did not receive immediate treatment. Soon
thereafter, Williams’ eye began leaking fluid and he was taken to the hospital where he
underwent an operation to repair a detached retina. Williams contends that upon his
return to SCIG, medical staff failed to comply with the surgeon’s post-operative
instructions and, as a result, he lost sight in his eye in or about December 2006.
2
The parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.
Defendants Prison Health Services, Inc. (“PHS”) and Dr. Snyder (“the Medical
Defendants”), and Defendants Nurse Stacy Latkanich, Administrator Lori Kwisnek,
Greivance Coordinator Angie Marhefka, Toni Colland, Chief Grievance Officer Kristen
Reisinger, Chief Grievance Officer Dorina Varner, Superintendent Melvin Lockett, and
Superintendent Joseph Mazurkiewicz (“the DOC Defendants”) filed motions to dismiss
the complaint, arguing that Williams’ claims are time-barred and/or fail to state a claim
for relief. The Magistrate Judge granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss and Williams
timely filed this appeal.
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and our review of an order granting
a motion to dismiss is plenary. Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir.
2008). After reviewing the record, we discern no error in the Magistrate Judge’s
analysis.
First, the Magistrate Judge Court correctly dismissed, on statute of limitations
grounds, Williams’ claim alleging that the Medical and DOC Defendants acted with
deliberate indifference in treating his eye. “The statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim
arising in Pennsylvania is two years.” Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009).
A § 1983 cause of action accrues on the date when a plaintiff knew or should have known
his rights had been violated. See Genty v. Resolution Trust Corp., 937 F.2d 899, 919 (3d
Cir. 1991).
3
Williams knew of the injury to his eye in or around December 2006--the date that
he became blind. Indeed, he submitted with his complaint a copy of a grievance that he
filed with the prison on December 4, 2006 describing that condition. Williams also
submitted a letter that he received from an attorney dated August 1, 2008, in which the
attorney declined to represent Williams but advised him that the statute of limitations
began to run on the date that he became blind. Williams did not file his complaint in the
District Court until November 2010, however. Accordingly, we agree that the claim is
untimely and the District Court properly dismissed it on that basis.
The Magistrate Judge also properly dismissed Williams’ claim that the Medical
and DOC Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when they
ignored his July 2009 request for treatment of his boil by a dermatologist.
The Eighth Amendment, through its prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment,
mandates that prison officials not act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious
medical needs by denying or delaying medical care. In order to establish that inadequate
medical care has risen to the level of a Constitutional deprivation, an inmate-plaintiff
must demonstrate that he had a “serious medical need” to which the defendants were
“deliberately indifferent.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).
With regard to the DOC Defendants, with the exception of Nurse Stacy Latkanich,
those individuals are non-medical staff. They are either grievance officers or
administrators. We have previously determined that non-medical officials are entitled to
rely on medical professionals’ judgment. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir.
4
2004) (“[A]bsent a reason to believe (or actual knowledge) that prison doctors or their
assistants are mistreating (or not treating) a prisoner, a non-medical prison official
. . . will not be chargeable with the Eighth Amendment scienter requirement of deliberate
indifference.”); Durmer v. O’Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 (3d Cir. 1993).
Williams does not plead any facts or present any documentation suggesting that
any of the grievance officers or administrators named in the complaint was aware of his
February 2009 request to see a dermatologist. Williams submitted a document with his
complaint stating only that he informed a DOC “staff member” of his request.
Accordingly, because Williams asserts no reason why the DOC employees named in his
complaint would have known (or had reason to believe) that medical staff had mistreated
or failed to treat his condition, the claim was properly dismissed. Spruill, 372 F.3d at
236.1
With regard to the Medical Defendants, even assuming that Williams’ condition
was sufficiently serious, we agree with the District Court that he has failed to allege facts
suggesting that those defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
As mentioned, Williams’ provided documentation indicating that his request to see a
dermatologist was directed to a DOC staff member. Absent an assertion that the Medical
Defendants were aware of and denied his request for treatment, Williams has failed to
state a claim for deliberate indifference against them. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845
1
Although Nurse Latkanich is a member of the medical staff, the only claim that
Williams asserts against her involves her alleged failure to administer medication
5
F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (holding that a “defendant in a civil rights action must
have a personal involvement in the alleged wrongs; liability cannot be predicated solely
on the operation of respondeat superior.”).2
Finally, to the extent that Williams raised a state law tort claim, the District Court
acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that
remaining claim. See Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 174 (3d Cir.
2009).
Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the judgment below. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. Williams’
request for appointment of counsel is denied. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d
Cir. 1993).
following his July 2006 eye surgery. As we have explained, that claim is time-barred.
2
Williams similarly fails to allege that either Dr. Snyder or PHS ignored the initial
diagnosis/recommendation that the boil be removed.
6