DLD-131 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 21-3210 ___________ KOJO MUATA and CARLOS LOPEZ, Appellants v. MARCUS O. HICKS, Esq., Commissioner of the Department of Corrections; JAMES SLAUGHTER, Administrator of East Jersey State Prison; CITY OF RAHWAY NEW JERSEY, County of Middlesex ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-13033) District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 21, 2022 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 7, 2022) _________ OPINION * _________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Kojo Muata and Carlos Lopez, inmates at East Jersey State Prison proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeal from the District Court’s order dismissing their complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm. I. In June 2021, plaintiffs brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment and Pennsylvania tort law related to their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendant James Slaughter, the former administrator of East Jersey State Prison, failed to protect prisoners from COVID-19 and was deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs when he implemented inadequate policies, including social distancing procedures that were not followed by lower ranking officials; that defendant Marcus Hicks, the commissioner of the Department of Corrections, failed to provide a viable way for prisoners to practice social distancing and ignored their serious medical needs; and that defendant City of Rahway, the city in which East Jersey State Prison is located, was negligent and deliberately indifferent to prisoners’ needs. The District Court screened the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and dismissed it for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs now appeal. II. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over a District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint under § 1915(e). Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373 (3d Cir. 2020). To avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Talley 2 v. Wetzel, 15 F.4th 275, 286 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). “When assessing the complaint, we are mindful of our obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings, particularly where the pro se litigant is imprisoned.” Id. (cleaned up). We may summarily affirm if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. III. To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care, “a plaintiff must make (1) a subjective showing that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his or …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals