Pascal J. Dubois v. MICHAEL T. ABODE, Warden

CPS-224 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-4682
________________
PASCAL J. DUBOIS,
Appellant
v.
MICHAEL T. ABODE, Warden; DEBRA A. CRAPELLA, Chief of
Administrative Services; SANDRA VARGAS, Director of Medical
Department; DR. WADHWA; MIDDLESEX COUNTY CORRECTION CENTER;
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.; QUALITY CLAIMS ADJUSTERS
INC.; MIDDLESEX COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; OFFICER ALEX PEPENELLA*,
Sheriff #86; KEATING BUILDING CORPORATION; ABC CORP.
(*Amended per order of 2/23/05)
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-03397)
District Judge: Honorable Katharine S. Hayden
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
April 28, 2005
Before: ALITO, MCKEE AND AMBRO, CIRCUIT JUDGE
(Filed: July 27, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________

-- 1 of 5 --

Because the background and specific allegations in Dubois’ complaint are fully1
and accurately set forth by the District Court, we have merely summarized that
information here. See June 29, 2004 D. Ct. Op. at 2-4.
2
PER CURIAM.
Pascal Dubois, an inmate at South Woods State Prison in New Jersey, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon events that occurred while he was a
pretrial detainee. Dubois alleged that various of the named defendants acted with
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs relating to (1) a back and rib injury
sustained during his transport from the Middlesex County Courthouse to the pretrial
detainee correction center; and (2) an eye condition. Dubois also alleged that defendant
Abode violated his First Amendment rights by interfering with or withholding Dubois’
outgoing legal mail.1
The defendants all filed motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. The District
Court found that Dubois’ claim against Quality Claims Adjusters (“QCA”) fails as QCA
had no personal involvement in Dubois’ medical care. As to defendants Pepenella and
Middlesex County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSD”), the District Court found that they did not
act with deliberate indifference as any delay in the treatment received by Dubois was
minimal and did not exacerbate his injuries. The District Court also found that Dubois’
claim against the Middlesex County Adult Correction Center (“MCACC”) seeks to hold
MCACC liable solely based upon the actions of its employees, but liability under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior. In addition, the

-- 2 of 5 --

3
District Court found that as to Dubois’ back and rib injury, he failed to establish that
Correctional Medical Services (“CMS”), Dr. Wadhwa, Vargas, Crapella, or Abode acted
with deliberate indifference as Dubois sought and received adequate medical treatment on
at least twenty-five occasions in a nineteen-month period. The District Court next found
that Dubois did not proffer evidence to support his claim that Abode denied him access to
the courts, or that Dubois was actually injured as a result of Abode’s alleged actions.
The District Court also found that CMS’s contract to provide medical care had
expired before Dubois submitted a request for an eye examination. The District Court
likewise found that Crapella did not actively participate in providing Dubois’ eye care.
Accordingly, the District Court found that both of these claims lacked merit as Dubois
failed to establish that either defendant had personal involvement in the alleged wrongs.
As to Dubois’ claims against defendants Abode, Dr. Wadhwa, and Vargas for his eye
condition, because the record was insufficiently developed, the District Court initially
denied summary judgment and requested supplemental briefing addressing this issue.
After further briefing, the court found that Dubois’ injury was not serious as his eye
examination found no evidence of visual disturbance, and showed that his pupils were
normal. In addition, the court found that the defendants did not act with deliberate
indifference as the record demonstrates that Dubois received adequate medical care.
Therefore, the District Court dismissed the complaint.
Dubois timely filed this appeal. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28

-- 3 of 5 --

4
U.S.C. § 1291. Dubois has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
When an appellant proceeds in forma pauperis, this Court must dismiss the appeal if it is
“frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A frivolous appeal has no arguable basis in
law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). After a careful review of the
record, we will dismiss this appeal as frivolous.
The District Court’s June 29, 2004, and November 30, 2004 opinions are well-
reasoned and comprehensive. As it noted, Dubois failed to show that QCA had personal
involvement in his medical care. See Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 249 (3d Cir.
2003). As to defendants Pepenella and MSCD, Dubois cannot establish that they acted
with deliberate indifference. See Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2001).
Dubois’ claim against MCACC lacks merit because liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
cannot be solely based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior. See Rouse v. Plantier,
182 F.3d 192, 200 (3d Cir. 1999). With regard to Dubois’ back and rib injuries, Dubois
failed to establish that CMS, Dr. Wadhwa, Vargas, Crapella, or Abode acted with
deliberate indifference. See Beers-Capitol, 256 F.3d at 120. Concerning Dubois’ eye
condition, Dubois also failed to establish that Dr. Wadhwa, Vargas, or Abode acted with
deliberate indifference, or that Crapella or CMS had personal involvement in the alleged
wrongs. See id.; Sutton, 323 F.3d at 249. Accordingly, Dubois’ medical-based claims
were correctly dismissed. Finally, the record does not demonstrate that Dubois was
actually injured from the alleged interference with his legal mail. See Oliver v. Fauver,

-- 4 of 5 --

5
118 F.3d 175, 177-78 (3d Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the District Court’s dismissal of this
claim was proper.
In sum, because Dubois’ appeal lacks arguable merit in fact or law, we will
dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

-- 5 of 5 --