Filed Date: April 21, 2004
Closed Date: March 30, 2005
Clearinghouse coding complete
Plaintiff, incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale, Pennsylvania, filed this action pro se on April 21, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that various officials and medical personnel of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (the "DOC") failed to provide adequate treatment for his Hepatitis C virus (HCV), in violation of the Eighth Amendment and as unlawful retaliation for his having previously filed grievances and lawsuits. He sought a preliminary injunction requiring the DOC to provide him with medication to treat his HCV. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment, monetary damages, costs, and other appropriate relief, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring the DOC to provide medication. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane.
On March 30, 2005, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of defendants, directing the clerk to close the case. The court held, first, that plaintiff's claims against the majority of defendants in the lawsuit had already been decided in a prior action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and thus that plaintiff was collaterally estopped from pursuing the same claims against the same defendants in this action. As to the only remaining defendant in the action, the court held that plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Per DOC policy, in order to receive medication for his HCV, plaintiff would have to agree to psychological evaluation, which he had refused. The court reasoned that defendants' refusal to provide HCV treatment without the psychological evaluation did not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal. On June 28, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal on collateral estoppel grounds. In addition, citing its prior ruling in a different case brought by plaintiff, raising the same claims, the appellate court explained: "[t]he DOC's requirement that prisoners undergoing interferon treatment submit to psychological evaluation and treatment is a reasonable inclusion in the HCV drug treatment protocol." Denial of treatment in light of plaintiff's refusal to submit to such testing did not violate the Eighth Amendment. 232 Fed.Appx. 120.
This case is now closed.
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4780258/parties/iseley-v-talaber/
Kane, Yvette (Pennsylvania)
Iseley, Charles (Pennsylvania)
Campbell, A. Tracey (Pennsylvania)
Dorian, Raymond W. (Pennsylvania)
Foreman, Samuel H. (Pennsylvania)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4780258/iseley-v-talaber/
Last updated Dec. 21, 2024, 2:56 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Pennsylvania
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Hepatitis C Treatment in Jails and Prisons
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 21, 2004
Closing Date: March 30, 2005
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A person incarcerated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, with Hepatitis C.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, State
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Medical/Mental Health Care: