Third Circuit Revives Pennsylvania Prisoner’s Claims Against the State and Wellpath
by Michael Thompson
Jose Montanez was incarcerated in Pennsylvania on August 28, 2021 when he suddenly collapsed in his cell. His body was numb from the chest down and he was unable to move his legs and, he soon discovered, he became incontinent.
He alerted a guard near his cell who called for another guard in turn. The two guards watched as he was forced to “drag his body over to the cell door” before the nurse took him to medical. Once there, he was told he would not be evaluated until the next day despite the paralysis. On hearing that, he asked to be taken to the hospital, to which the nurse laughed, “You’re not going to the hospital.” She did, however, acquire a new cell for him and rolled him to the door, offering no assistance and forcing him to drag himself across the floor again.
The doctor’s visit to his cell was no better. The doctor commanded him from the cell door to walk, resulting in another drag along the floor. Montanez informed the doctor that, along with the paralysis, he was involuntarily urinating on himself. The doctor just nodded and walked off, leaving Montanez to himself for three days.
An MRI revealed the need for an expedited surgery. Afterwards, he was given just two weeks of rehabilition and returned to a different prison, sill unable to stand. A subsequent fall caused a herniated disk but he was denied adequate pain medication to deal with the surgery or the injury. In addition to more pain medicine, he also requested crutches or a cane, a double mattress, and access to physical therapy. Those requests were repeatedly denied.
Montanez filed a pro se complaint against the state and Wellpath (the medical provider). However, the form he was required to use at the time limited the space available to list the defendants, dates, places, and issues. The defendants then used the complaint’s brevity against him in a motion to dismiss, saying the allegations were insufficient to make a claim. The district court agreed with the defendants.
In addition, the court dismissed his disability claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA) as well as any claims he had about their indifference to his right to be free from disability discrimination. The district court also concluded he could not amend the complaint because it would be futile due to the “factual and legal defects identified in” the complaint.
Montanez appealed.
Accepting his claims as true at that stage, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found the nurse’s actions were “textbook deliberate indifference.” According to Montanez, another defendant, Ellers, knew and “lied about the results of the x-ray” showing the herniated disk. The Court held that Ellers would have had “actual … knowledge that prison doctors or their assistants [were] mistreating (or not treating)” Montanez’s serious medical need.
Additionally, the Court found that his being denied access to toilets, beds, and medical care constituted a Title II and Section 504 claim under the ADA and the RA. Finally, the Court concluded that the artificially truncated complaint Montanez was required to use could have been amended. In support of this, the Court pointed out his briefs in opposition to the defendants’ motions consumed more than 50 pages, a stark contrast to the less than four pages permitted in the complaint. As a result, Montanez’s dismissed claims were reversed while his motion to amend was remanded. See: Montanez v. Price, 154 F.4th 127 (3d Cir. 2025).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Montanez v. Price,
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 154 F.4th 127 (3d Cir. 2025) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |