Sanders v. Prince et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALPHONSO SANDERS,
Plaintiff
V.
DR. PRINCE, et al.,
No. 3:25cv234
(Judge Munley)
Defendants
·•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••	••••••••••• ■ ■ ■ •••• ■ ••••••••••••••• ■ • •• ■ •••••••••••••• ■ • ■ •••••••••• ■ •••••• ■ •••• ■ ••••••••••••••• ■ ■ ••••••• ■ ••• ■
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Alphonso Sanders ("Sanders") commenced this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he received inadequate medical care
at the State Correctional Institution, Dallas, Pennsylvania. 1 (Doc. 1). 	Presently
before the court is a motion (Doc. 27) to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b )(6) by defendants Dr. Scott Prince and Physician's Assistant
Mark Abel (together, the "medical defendants" ). 2 Sanders failed to respond to
1 On March 26 , 2025 , the court stayed all proceedings against defendants Scott Prince
and Mark Abel due to the filing of a voluntary petition for relief pursuant to Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code by Wellpath Holdings, Inc ., in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Texas , Houston Division , see In re: Wellpath Holdings, Inc ., No . 4:24-bk-
90533 (Bankr. S.D. Tx.), and the orders of the bankruptcy court enforcing the automatic stay
under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) . (Doc. 14). On May 1 and 9, 2025 , the bankruptcy court entered
orders that resulted in the lifting of the automatic stay, and this court, in turn , lifted its stay of
the proceedings against defendants Prince and Abel. 	(Doc. 30) .
2 Also named as defendants are Superintendent Jason Bohinsky, Director of
Healthcare Services Erica Benning , and Psychologist Services Specialist Kate Conmy
(collectively, the "DOC defendants"). By memorandum and order dated November 13 , 2025 ,
the court granted in part and denied in part the DOC defendants' Rule 12(b) motion , and
Case 3:25-cv-00234-JKM-CA Document 36 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 10

the motion and the time for responding has now passed. 3 Therefore, the motion
is deemed unopposed and ripe for resolution. 	For the reasons that follow, the
court will grant the motion.
I. 	Factual Background & Procedural History 4
Sanders alleges that his medical ailments started in May of 2022, when he
began suffering from sciatica, causing pain in his lower back and leg. 	(Doc. 1 ,m
12 , 18; Docs. 1-1, 1-2). 	Sanders asserts that Physician's Assistant Mark Abel
prescribed multiple medications, but these medications interfered with other
previously prescribed medications and caused adverse side effects. (Doc. 1 ,m
8, 23). 	He was also provided Icy Hot balm , which did not provide relief. 	(Doc. 1-
7).
Sanders underwent physical therapy to align his hips. 	(Doc. 1 ,m 9, 22).
On August 16 , 2022 , a physical therapist informed Sanders that a follow- up
physical therapy session was not necessary because his "hips are aligned. " 	(~)-
afforded Sanders the opportunity to amend his claims against the DOC defendants. (Docs. 31 ,
32). 	Sanders was cautioned that "[f]ailure to file a proposed amended complaint [by November
26 , 2025] will convert the dismissal of the remaining claim without prejudice to a dismissal with
prejudice without the necessity of a further order of court ." (Doc. 32 ~ 6). 	Sanders chose not
to file an amended complaint against the DOC defendants.
3 Sanders was directed to file a brief in opposition to the medical defendants' motion by
October 14 , 2025 , and was admonished that failure to file an opposition brief would result in
the motion being deemed unopposed . (Doc. 29) (citing LOCAL RUL E OF COURT 7.6).
4 The factual allegations are derived from Sanders' complaint and the attachments
thereto.
2
Case 3:25-cv-00234-JKM-CA Document 36 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 10

Sanders requested a "better mattress" to help ease his pain. 	(kl ,I 12).
On May 27 , 2022, Sanders requested a walking cane, but Dr. Prince
informed him that he cannot have a cane because it posed a security risk. 	(kl ,I
18).
On June 6, 2022, Sanders sent a request slip to Psychologist Services
Specialist Kate Conmy regarding his medical treatment. 	(kl ,I 20). 	In response,
Conmy advised Sanders that she was "not a medical prac[ti]tioner" and could not
help him address his concerns. 	(kl).
On June 27 , 2022, Sanders filed grievance number 986852 related to his
medical treatment. 	(kl ,I 21 ; Doc. 1-3). Sanders' grievance was denied on initial
review and then by the Facility Manager. 	(Doc. 1- 7). 	Sanders appealed the
denial to the Chief Grievance Officer, and , on February 21 , 2023, the Chief
Grievance Officer denied the grievance as follows:
A review of the record was conducted by the Bureau of Health Care
Services regarding your concern of not being provided appropriate
medical care. Your medical record was also reviewed , and it was
determined that the medical care provided was reasonable and
appropriate. The findings of the review concur with the Initial Review
Response. 	Therefore, your grievance and requested relief are
denied .
(Doc. 1-5).
3
Case 3:25-cv-00234-JKM-CA Document 36 Filed 01/02/26 Page 3 of 10

For relief, Sanders seeks "proper administration of pain medication[,]" he
requests an MRI to determine the cause of his sciatic nerve damage, as well as
monetary relief and costs associated with litigating this action. 	(Doc. 1, at 16-17).
The medical defendants now move to dismiss the complaint based upon
the resolution of the Wellpath bankruptcy action in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Texas. 	(Docs. 27, 28).
II. 	Legal Standard
Rule 12(b )(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the
dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
FED. R. c,v. P. 12(b)(6). When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),
the court must "accept as true all [factual] allegations in the complaint and all
reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom , and view them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff." 	Kanter v. Barella , 489 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir.
2007) (quoting Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 350 (3d Cir. 2005)). 	Although
the court is generally limited in its review to the facts contained in the complaint,
it "may also consider matters of public record , orders, exhibits attached to the
complaint and items appearing in the record of the case." 	Oshiver v. Levin,
Fishbein, Sedran & Berman , 38 F.3d 1380, 1384 n. 2 (3d Cir. 1994 ); see also lo.
re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997).
Federal notice and pleading rules require the complaint to provide "the
4
Case 3:25-cv-00234-JKM-CA Document 36 Filed 01/02/26 Page 4 of 10

defendant notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."
Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 	To test the sufficiency of the
complaint in the face of a Rule 12(b )(6) motion , the court must conduct a three-
step inquiry. 	See Santiago v. Warminster Twp. , 629 F.3d 121 , 130-31 (3d Cir.
2010). 	In the first step, "the court must 'tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff
must plead to state a claim. "' 	~ (quoting Ashcroft v. Igbal , 556 U.S. 662, 675
(2009)). 	Next, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated ;
well-pleaded facts must be accepted as true, while mere legal conclusions may
be disregarded . .!.9.: ; see also Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11
(3d Ci r. 2009). Once the well-pleaded factual allegations have been isolated , the
court must determine whether they are sufficient to show a "plausible claim for
relief ." 	Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556); Twombly, 550
U.S . at 555 (requiring plaintiffs to allege facts sufficient to "raise a right to relief
above the speculative level"). A claim "has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. " J.9!;@! , 556 U.S. at 678.
Ill. 	Discussion
The medical defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss the complaint
based on the bankruptcy plan and confirmation order entered by the bankruptcy
5
Case 3:25-cv-00234-JKM-CA Document 36 Filed 01/02/26 Page 5 of 10

court. (Docs. 27 , 28). 	They contend that under the bankruptcy plan , all claims
against Wellpath and its employees are discharged and must be dismissed
unless the claimant timely opted out of the Third-Party Release, and Sanders
failed to do so . 	(.!ft). 	Sanders did not respond to the medical defendants' motion
and has not presented any information that he opted out of the Third-Party
Release or otherwise took action in the bankruptcy court. 5
At all relevant times, the medical defendants, Dr. Scott Prince and
Physician's Assistant Mark Abel , were current and/or former employees of
Wellpath , LLC. 	(See Doc. 28 , at 2). On November 11 , 2024, Wellpath petitioned
for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Texas. 	In re : Wellpath Holdings, Inc ., No . 4:24 -bk-90533
(Bankr. S. D. Tx.). 	On May 1, 2025, the bankruptcy court entered an order
confirming a Chapter 11 plan to reorganize Wellpath and restructure its debt. 6
.!ft_ , Doc. 2596. 	The plan 's effective date occurred on May 9, 2025 . .!ft. , Doc.
5 Sanders was notified of his right to submit a response brief to the medical defendants'
motion to dismiss. (Doc. 29 ). 	He was also specifically provided the opportunity to submit any
affidavits or documents that supported his attempt to opt out of the Third-Party Re lease.
(Docs . 33 , 35) . Sanders failed to submit any such affidavits or documents.
6 The approved reorganization plan calls for the discharge of all claims against
Wellpath and its employees for events that occurred before November 11 , 2024. See In re :
Wellpath , No . 4:24-bk-90533 , Docs. 2596 , 2679 , 2680. Sanders' complaint involves events
that began in May of 2022 and , thus , arose prior to Wellpath 's filing of its Chapter 11 petition
on November 11 , 2024.
6
Case 3:25-cv-00234-JKM-CA Document 36 Filed 01/02/26 Page 6 of 10

2680. 	The Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan substantially limited the circumstances
under which a plaintiff can pursue legal claims against Wellpath and its
employees, but it permitted claimants to opt out of the plan's Third-Party Release
in order to proceed in the district court for any individual capacity claims against
Wellpath employees. 	Under the plan, incarcerated individuals who had personal
injury claims pending against non-debtor defendants (Wellpath's directors,
officers, and other employees) had until July 30 , 2025 to opt out of the third-party
releases of claims against non-debtor defendants under the plan. 7 (Doc. 27-3, at
52, bankruptcy court order of May 1, 2025, ,I 43 ; Doc. 27-4, at 25, ,I 178 (Article
I.A.178)). A claimant who did not provide timely written confirmation would
become a "Releasing Party" and be "deemed to have conclusively, absolutely,
unconditionally, irrevocably, and forever, released and discharged" Wellpath and
its employees from any claims that arose prior to November 11 , 2024. 	(Doc. 27-
4, at 75 (Article IX.D)).
Pursuant to Article IX .F of the plan , any holders of claims or causes of
action against the Released Party 8 subject to the Third-Party Release who did
7 The bankruptcy court's confirmation order provides: "Wellpath shall provide notice to
all known personal injury and wrongful death claimants of the extended 90 -day period to opt
out from the Third-Party Release in Article IX .D and File a certificate of service with the
Bankruptcy Court." (Doc. 27 -3, at 52 , bankruptcy court order of May 1, 2025 , ,i 43) .
8 Article I.A.177 of the plan provides that: '" Released Parties' means ... each Debtor
[and] the Related Parties of[each Debtor]. " (Doc. 27-4, at24 -25). And Article I.A.175 of the
plan provides: '" Related Party' ... means with respect to any Entity, such
7
Case 3:25-cv-00234-JKM-CA Document 36 Filed 01/02/26 Page 7 of 10

not affirmatively opt out of the Third-Party Release are permanently enjoined
from taking any action , including the commencement, further prosecution of, or
collection efforts, against the Released Parties, including non-debtor defendants
(the "injunction" ). 	(kl at 77 (Article IX.F)). The deadline to opt out has expired
and Sanders has not opted out of the Third-Party Release. Sanders has not
informed this court that he submitted any communication affirmatively expressing
an intent to opt out of the Third-Party Release imposed as part of the plan of
reorganization . Additionally, the docket in Wellpath 's bankruptcy case shows
that Sanders did not file an opt-out request there. See In re: Wellpath , No . 4:24-
bk-90533. 	Further, all pro se filings in the Wellpath bankruptcy case are now
being docketed in Wellpath SF Holdco 1 LLC , No. 24-bk-90566 (Bankr. S.D. Tx.).
Review of this docket confirms that Sanders is not listed as one of the QIQ se
parties who opted out of the third-party releases contained in the Wellpath
bankruptcy plan .
Absent any information that Sanders opted out of the Third-Party Release
or otherwise took action in the bankruptcy court, the claims against the medical
defendants are barred by the injunction contained in the confirmed Chapter 11
bankruptcy plan, and the court will grant the medical defendants' motion to
Entity's . .. employees ... acting in such capacity whether current or former ." (kl at 24 ).
Therefore , defendants Scott and Abel are Released Parties under the plan .
8
Case 3:25-cv-00234-JKM-CA Document 36 Filed 01/02/26 Page 8 of 10

dismiss. 	See Ch. 11 Plan , Art. IX, In re : Wellpath , No. 4:24-bk-90533, Doc.
2596, at 128-136; see also 11 U.S .C. § 524(a)(2 ) ("A discharge in a [Chapter 11
bankruptcy] case ... operates as an injunction against the commencement or
continuation of an action , the employment of process, or an act, to collect,
recover or offset any such debt as a personal liability of the debtor . .. "); 11 U.S.C.
§ 1141(a ), (d), Effect of confirmation.
IV. 	Leave to Amend
Before dismissing a civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which rel ief may be granted, a district court must permit a curative amendment
unless the amendment would be inequitable or futile. Phillips, 515 F.3d at 245.
For the reasons set forth herein , the court concludes that granting Sanders leave
to amend his claims against the medical defendants would be a futile endeavor.
This court is not the proper forum for Sanders to pursue his claims against the
medical defendants, who are current and/or former Wellpath employees. The
claims against the medical defendants will be dismissed without prejudice to
Sanders' right to pursue appropriate relief through the bankruptcy court.
9
Case 3:25-cv-00234-JKM-CA Document 36 Filed 01/02/26 Page 9 of 10

V. 	Conclusion
Consistent with the foregoing, the court will grant the medical defendants'
motion to dismiss. 	(Doc. 27).
An appropriate order shall issue.
United
10
Case 3:25-cv-00234-JKM-CA Document 36 Filed 01/02/26 Page 10 of 10