Windom v. Mahli et al

ROY WINDOM,
V.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff 	CIV. ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-139
(JUDGE MANNION)
DR. RAJINDER MALHI, et al.,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM
This is a prisoner civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983
in which plaintiff alleges that defendants provided him inadequate medical
care following an incident in which he fell from an upper bunk bed and
sustained injuries. The case is before the court on defendants' motions to
dismiss and several other motions. For the reasons that follow, this case
will be dismissed.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Roy Windom, filed this case on January 22 , 2025. (Doc. 1).
On 	February 	6, 	2025, the 	court 	directed 	the 	Clerk of Court to 	serve
defendants with plaintiff's complaint. (Doc. 7). Defendants responded to the
complaint by moving for a stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362 based on an
ongoing 	bankruptcy 	proceeding 	filed 	by 	Wellpath 	Holdings, 	Inc.
Case 3:25-cv-00139-MEM-LT Document 44 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 6

("Wellpath"), and its affiliated companies in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Texas ("the bankruptcy court"). (Doc. 11 ).
The court granted the motion and stayed and administratively closed the
case on March 14, 2025. (Doc. 14). On May 30, 2025, defendants provided
a status report to this court in which they represent that the automatic stay
no longer applies to this case in light of a May 1, 2025, order from the
bankruptcy court approving Wellpath 's Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.
See (Doc. 15); see also In re Wei/path Holdings, Inc., No. 24-90533, Doc.
2596 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 1, 2025). The court accordingly lifted the stay
and reopened the case on June 26 , 2025. (Doc. 16).
On July 30, 2025, defendants Malhi, Edwards, Talasky, and Nalley
("Wellpath Defendants") moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. 17). In response, Windom
moved for leave to amend the complaint. (Doc. 19).
On 	October 	31 , 	2025, 	Windom 	moved 	for 	sanctions 	against
defendant Mccorkle and his counsel for his failure to respond to Windom's
complaint. (Doc. 29). Windom subsequently moved for contempt of court
against Mccorkle and 	his counsel 	on 	December 30, 	2025. 	(Doc. 34 ).
Mccorkle responded to this second motion by moving to dismiss the case
for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted on January
Case 3:25-cv-00139-MEM-LT Document 44 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 6

14, 2026. (Doc. 38). Windom then withdrew his claims against Mccorkle
and consented to his dismissal on February 11, 2026. (Doc. 42).
Meanwhile, on December 30, 2025, the Wellpath Defendants moved
to dismiss the case as barred by the bankruptcy court's discharge order
because they were all acting in their capacity as Wellpath employees when
they took the actions that give rise to Windom's claims. (Doc. 32). Windom
opposed this motion to dismiss on January 14, 2026. (Doc. 37). Windom
does not dispute the Wellpath Defendants' contention that his claims are
barred by the terms of the Bankruptcy Court's discharge order, but argues
that 	the 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	should 	be 	denied 	because 	the 	Wellpath
Defendants did not give him sufficient notice of the bankruptcy court's
order. (Id. ) On February 17 , 2026, Windom filed a motion to stay disposition
of this motion to dismiss, noting that he has sought rel ief in the bankruptcy
court based on the purported lack of notice and asking that the court delay
resolving the Wellpath Defendants' motion to dismiss until the bankruptcy
court has ruled on this issue. The court resolves all of the pending motions
in the instant opinion .
Case 3:25-cv-00139-MEM-LT Document 44 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 6

II. 	DISCUSSION
At the outset, because Windom has conceded that Mccorkle should
be dismissed, the court will grant McCorkle's motion to dismiss and deny
as moot Windom's motion for sanctions and motion for contempt of court.
The court will additionally grant the Wellpath Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The reorganization plan approved by the bankruptcy court clearly
requires the claims against the Wellpath Defendants to be dismissed in this
court. (See Doc. 33-2 at 130-37). Windom does not dispute this conclusion.
(See Doc. 37).
Windom's sole argument in opposition to the motion to dismiss is that
he 	was 	not given 	adequate 	notice 	of the 	reorganization 	plan 	by 	the
Wellpath Defendants. This argument must be asserted in the bankruptcy
court. (See Doc. 33-2 at 54 ("[T]he Bankruptcy Court retains jurisdiction
over all matters arising out of, or relating to, the Chapter 11 cases and the
Plan pursuant to sections 105(a) and 	1142 of the Bankruptcy Code 	in
accordance 	with 	the 	Plan, 	including 	Article 	XII."); 	Guggenheimer 	v.
Wei/path, LLC, No. 3:24-CV-2242, 2025 WL 3008148, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Oct.
27, 2025) (finding that this provision of the plan requires plaintiffs asserting
lack of notice to pursue that argument in 	the bankruptcy court). 	If the
bankruptcy court subsequently finds that this case is properly reopened
Case 3:25-cv-00139-MEM-LT Document 44 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 6

based on a lack of notice of the bankruptcy discharge, plaintiff may assert
this as the basis for a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or a motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Accordingly, the claims
against the Wellpath Defendants will 	be dismissed without prejudice to
Windom's right to seek appropriate relief in 	the bankruptcy court. 	The
Wellpath 	Defendants' 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	for 	failure 	to 	state 	a 	claim,
Windom's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and Windom's
motion to stay will be denied as moot.
Ill. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant McCorkle's motion to dismiss
and the Wellpath Defendants' motion to dismiss based on the bankruptcy
discharge will be granted, all other pending motions will be denied as moot,
and this case will be dismissed without prejudice to Windom's right to seek
Case 3:25-cv-00139-MEM-LT Document 44 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 6

appropriate relief in the bankruptcy court with regard to his claims against
the Wellpath Defendants.
United States District Judge
DATED: 	2/z~-;z~25-139-01
Case 3:25-cv-00139-MEM-LT Document 44 Filed 02/25/26 Page 6 of 6