Pennsylvania Prisoner Loses Hepatitis C Deliberate Indifference Suit
Pennsylvania Prisoner Loses Hepatitis C Deliberate Indifference Suit
Before a magistrate for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December 9, 2013, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ officials and medical staff prevailed on several fronts in separate motions to dismiss in response to a medical indifference suit. Plaintiff Jason E. Runkle, a hepatitis C positive prisoner at the State Correctional Institution at Mercer, brought on January, 28, 2013, a §1983 complaint alleging Eighth Amendment violations for the medical staff’s deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in knowingly refusing treatment for his hepatitis C. Runkle also sought class action status for other similarly situated prisoners and declaratory injunctive relief. Defendants grouped as either ‘medical defendants’ or ‘DOC defendants’ filed separate motions to dismiss in April 2013 and plaintiff responded. Defendants replied, and the cause went before the magistrate.
Defendants argued the statute of limitations had already passed, inasmuch as the complaint was filed more than two years after the plaintiff became aware of actionable circumstances. Plaintiff countered with the continuing violation doctrine. The court held that the continuing violation doctrine was applicable in cases where a single incident – such as employment discrimination cases – was insufficient to be deemed actionable, but the weight of repeated conduct qualified.
Defendants also argued that Runkle failed to exhaust administrative remedies in that Runkle did not timely appeal two grievances, filed grievances to the wrong officials, and did not include sufficient specifics to aver substantive wrongdoing on the part of the defendants. The court held for the defendants from the face of the complaint. With respect to the deliberate indifference assertion, the court assessed the time frames involved and the DOC policy of implementing a minimum sentence rule for treatment protocol and found defendants actions did not constitute deliberate indifference. The court found that absent treatment protocol issues, plaintiff had no claim.
The court also found for defendants on qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. See: Runkle v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Corr., U.S.D.C. (W.D. Penn.), Case no: 2:13-cv-00137-MKP.
Related legal case
Runkle v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections
| Year | 2013 |
|---|---|
| Cite | U.S.D.C. (W.D. Penn.), Case no: 2:13-cv-00137-MKP |
| Level | District Court |