Rozzelle v. Rossi , 307 F. App'x 640 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-5-2008
Rozzelle v. Rossi
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4192
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Rozzelle v. Rossi" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 154.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/154
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 2008 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-4192
__________
KEITH ROZZELLE,
Appellant,
v.
CHARLES ROSSI, Health Care Administrator;
DR. FALOR; EMSA and/or PRISON HEALTH SERVICES;
RAYMOND RAMSEY
__________
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Civ. No. 98-1738)
District Court Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lancaster
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
November 21, 2008
___________
Before: FUENTES, HARDIMAN and GARTH, Circuit Judges,
(Opinion Filed: December 5, 2008)
__________
OPINION
___________
GARTH, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Keith Rozzelle (“Rozzelle”) sued Appellees herein, Charles Rossi
(“Rossi”), healthcare administrator for Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”)
correctional institute SCI-Greene; Stanley Falor, M.D. (“Dr. Falor”), one of Rozzelle’s
treating physicians; Emergency Medical Services Associates (“EMSA”), an independent
contractor that provided health care to inmates at SCI-Greene; and Raymond Ramsey
(“Ramsey”), who worked for EMSA (collectively “Defendants”). Rozzelle claims the
Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights while he was
incarcerated.
Rozzelle suffers from severe cystic acne and alleges that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when they denied him the acne drug
Accutane. He claims this resulted in painful, open lesions and permanent acne scarring.
Rozzelle was successfully treated with Accutane at various prison facilities until
his transfer to SCI-Greene in September, 1996. Within a short time, Accutane was no
longer prescribed or provided to Rozzelle due to Rozzelle’s increased liver enzymes.1
Appx. 51a. After Defendant Dr. Falor tried other drugs, Dr. Falor requested a
dermatology consult.
On July 21, 1998, Dr. Small, the outside dermatologist, concluded that Rozzelle
1
Potential side effects of Accutane include elevation of liver enzymes and
clinical hepatitis. Appx. 52a.
-2-
could be considered for Accutane pending blood analysis. The tests were normal, so on
July 26, 1998, Dr. Falor ordered a non-formulary2 request for Accutane from EMSA; this
request was denied, as was a subsequent request. Appx. 53a. EMSA suggested that Dr.
Falor prescribe Retin-A cream. Rozzelle used the cream until November 9, 1998, when
Dr. Falor noted that Rozzelle’s acne was “controlled.” Id. Rozzelle was then given
medicated soap and shampoo and Benadryl. Rozzelle still requested Accutane.
Rozzelle filed two prison grievances, neither of which were appealed.3 They were
denied and Rozzelle filed suit on October 21, 1998.
On April 22, 2000, the District Court granted summary judgment to
Superintendent Johnson but denied summary judgment to Rossi and Dr. Falor. The
District Court also denied a motion to dismiss filed by Dr. Falor. Rozzelle amended his
complaint to add claims against EMSA and Ramsey.
On April 3, 2003, the District Court sua sponte dismissed Rozzelle’s complaint for
2
A “formulary” is a predetermined list of economical medications that doctors at
an institution may prescribe; non-formulary drugs are drugs that do not appear on the
approved list of medications. Appx. 40a.
3
Pursuant to Pennsylvania DC-ADM 804, the Inmate Grievance Review System,
there is a three-step grievance process. First, an inmate files a grievance with a grievance
coordinator, who forwards it to an officer for initial review. Supp. Appx. 17a. This
review must occur before any appeal can be sought. Second, after receiving a written
response, the inmate may appeal the initial decision to the superintendent; this first-level
appeal can only address issues which were raised in the grievance, and the inmate “must
appeal in this manner prior to seeking Final Review.” Id. The facility manager notifies
the inmate of the resolution of the first-level appeal, and if the inmate is dissatisfied, he
may pursue step three – final review (by sending a request to the Chief Hearing
Examiner). Supp. Appx. 18a; 10a.
-3-
failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Rozzelle appealed.
We issued an unpublished per curiam opinion on October 14, 2004, affirming the
grant of summary judgment to Johnson. However, we found sufficient evidence for
Rozzelle to state a cause of action against Dr. Falor, Rossi, EMSA, and Ramsey, and we
remanded for further proceedings.
Dr. Falor, Rossi, EMSA, and Ramsey jointly moved for summary judgment on
January 30, 2007. The Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (“R&R”)
concluded that the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment should be granted for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies and because Rozzelle’s claims were meritless.
On September 28, 2007, the District Court adopted the R&R. Rozzelle timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court had jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
I.
We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. Sutton v. Rasheed,
323 F.3d 236, 248 (3d Cir. 2003). In order to bring a Section 1983 action challenging
prison conditions, a prisoner must exhaust all administrative remedies, which means no
remedies remain available, and the prisoner has not procedurally defaulted. 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002); Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 227-
31 (3d Cir. 2004).
The record includes an affidavit by Cindy Watson, grievance review officer in
-4-
charge of records of appeals for the Pennsylvania DOC. Supp. Appx. 1a. As custodian
of DOC records, Watson reviewed the documents and found that Rozzelle “has not
completed all of the necessary steps in the grievance procedure relative to those
grievances.” Supp. Appx. 2a. As stated, “[h]e did not file for final appeal concerning
either one of those grievances.” Id.
We affirm the District Court’s granting of summary judgment to Dr. Falor, Rossi,
EMSA, and Ramsey on lack of exhaustion grounds.
II.
In any event we find no Eighth Amendment violation. An Eighth Amendment
analysis is two-pronged: (1) the person inflicting the injury was deliberately indifferent,
and (2) the medical needs were objectively serious.4 Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166,
172 (3d Cir. 1997).
“[W]here ‘knowledge of the need for medical care [is accompanied by the] . . .
intentional refusal to provide that care,’ the deliberate indifference standard has been
met.” Monmouth County Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir.
1987)(internal citations omitted). “Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional
violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976). Here, there was no intentional refusal to provide care for Rozzelle’s acne, and a
4
Rozzelle contends his condition is serious enough to satisfy the second prong of
our inquiry. This contention does not appear to be disputed.
-5-
mere allegation of malpractice does not raise an issue of constitutional import.
There is no evidence that Dr. Falor was deliberately indifferent. To the contrary,
Dr. Falor treated Rozzelle numerous times, and he attempted to acquire Accutane and
then treated Rozzelle with substitute medications until Rozzelle’s acne was controlled.
As we have noted, Rozzelle was kept off Accutane for safety reasons. According to Dr.
Falor’s notes, Dr. Falor thought the alternative treatments were successful. Appx. 53a,
54a. Even if Dr. Falor had erred, such an error would merely amount to malpractice.
Furthermore, Rozzelle offers no new evidence to show deliberate indifference by
Rossi, EMSA, and Ramsey. We agree with the District Court that Rozzelle’s complaint
does not meet the standard of deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
-6-