Chad Allen Sasse v. John E. Wetzel

BLD-120 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 21-3033
___________
CHAD ALLEN SASSE,
Appellant
v.
JOHN E. WETZEL; BARRY R. SMITH; DORETTA CHENCHARICK;
REBECCA REIFER; THERESA CANTOLINA, R.N.;
JANET PEARSON, R.N.; MUHAMMAD NAJI; PATRICK NAGLE, M.A.;
CASEY JAMES; MARGARET BARNES, C.R.N.P.;
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS LLC, individually and in their official capacities
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-00130)
District Judge: Honorable Stephanie L. Haines
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 7, 2022
Before: MCKEE, GREENAWAY, Jr., and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 17, 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.

-- 1 of 6 --

2
Chad Sasse, an inmate at State Correctional Institution – Houtzdale (“SCI
Houtzdale”) proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his
amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.
I.
In August 2019, Sasse filed a civil rights action in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania against defendants,1 alleging violations of the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments related to his medical care. In his third amended
complaint (which is the operative pleading), Sasse alleged that he has “severe gluten
sensitive enteropathy,” or celiac disease, and defendants failed to take the steps necessary
to diagnose and treat his condition over the course of several years, thereby displaying
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
The corrections defendants and the medical defendants both filed motions to
dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The matter was referred to a Magistrate
Judge, who recommended that the motions be granted, concluding that Sasse failed to
1 Specifically, Sasse named as defendants various corrections officials, including former
Pennsylvania Secretary of Corrections John Wetzel; SCI Houtzdale Superintendent Barry
Smith; and former and current SCI Houtzdale grievance coordinators Doretta
Chencharick and Rebecca Reifer; and Medical Directors/nurses Theresa Cantolina and
Janet Pearson (collectively, “corrections defendants”). Also named as defendants were
private contractual healthcare provider Correct Care Solutions and its employees,
Muhammad Naji, Patrick Nagle, Casey (formerly Thornley) James, and Margaret Barnes
(collectively, “medical defendants”). Sasse sued all defendants in their individual and
official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

-- 2 of 6 --

3
allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal claim. Over Sasse’s objections, the
District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and granted
the motions to dismiss. Sasse timely appealed.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the District Court’s
grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo. See Newark Cab Ass’n v. City
of Newark, 901 F.3d 146, 151 (3d Cir. 2018). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir.
2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted). As a pro se litigant, Sasse is entitled to
liberal construction of his complaint. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(per curiam). 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.
Prison officials “violate the Eighth Amendment when they act deliberately
indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs by intentionally denying or delaying
access to medical care or interfering with the treatment once prescribed.” Pearson v.
Prison Health Serv., 850 F.3d 526, 534 (3d Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). “We have found ‘deliberate indifference’ in a variety of circumstances,
including where the prison official (1) knows of a prisoner’s need for medical treatment

-- 3 of 6 --

4
but intentionally refuses to provide it; (2) delays necessary medical treatment based on a
non-medical reason; or (3) prevents a prisoner from receiving needed or recommended
medical treatment.” Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999).
First, the District Court properly dismissed Sasse’s claims against the corrections
defendants. Defendants in civil rights actions “must have personal involvement in the
alleged wrongs to be liable and cannot be held responsible for a constitutional violation
which he or she neither participated in nor approved.” Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d
187, 210 (3d Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “Personal involvement
can be shown through allegations of personal direction or of actual knowledge and
acquiescence.” Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988).
As the District Court explained, Sasse’s allegations concerning the corrections
defendants largely involve their handling of the grievance process. He does not
adequately allege that they were personally involved in his medical care or had any other
personal involvement in the alleged unconstitutional failures to adequately diagnose and
treat his medical condition. See Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207-08. Moreover, as non-medical
prison officials, Wetzel, Smith, Chencharick, and Reifer were not chargeable with
deliberate indifference “absent a reason to believe (or actual knowledge) that prison
doctors or their assistants are mistreating (or not treating) a prisoner.” Spruill v. Gillis,
372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir. 2004). There is no evidence to suggest that these defendants
had any reason to believe that the medical team was mistreating or not treating Sasse,

-- 4 of 6 --

5
especially considering the evidence that Sasse received multiple blood tests, medications,
and vitamins aimed at treating his condition.2
The District Court also properly dismissed Sasse’s claims against medical
defendants Naji, Nagle, James, Barnes, and Correct Care Solutions. “[W]hen medical
care is provided, we presume that the treatment of a prisoner is proper absent evidence
that it violates professional standards of care.” Pearson, 850 F.3d at 535. Mere
allegations of medical malpractice or disagreement as to the proper medical treatment are
insufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim. Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst. Inmates
v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987).
The record shows that the medical staff3 exercised professional judgment in
treating Sasse’s condition, and there is nothing to suggest that his treatment violated
professional standards of care. Sasse’s contentions that he should have been provided a
gluten-free diet, access to a gastroenterologist, and an endoscopic intestinal biopsy
constitute a mere disagreement as to the proper medical treatment, particularly
considering that his medical records showed no allergy to gluten that would necessitate
his preferred course of treatment.
2 Sasse also alleges that Medical Director Pearson told Sasse, “You should be ashamed
that concerned family is calling here for you.” However, Sasse has not provided context
for this statement or any analysis to explain how it contributed to the violation of his
constitutional rights. This cursory allegation is inadequate to demonstrate personal
involvement.
3 This analysis also applies to Medical Directors Pearson and Cantolina to the extent that
they can be considered medical providers because of their training as nurses.

-- 5 of 6 --

6
Regarding Correct Care Solutions, Sasse failed to allege any specific policy or
custom that violated federal laws, beyond a vague reference to “policies that allow those
employees to give cursory exams for something as serious as bloody stools during
periods of gluten consumption.” This was inadequate to state a claim against Correct
Care Solutions. See Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 232 (3d Cir. 2017) (explaining
that, “[t]o state a claim against a private corporation providing medical services under
contract with a state prison system, a plaintiff must allege a policy or custom that resulted
in the alleged constitutional violations at issue”).
IV.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. LAR
27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. Sasse’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted for the purpose
of considering appointment of counsel, see Gibbs v. Ryan, 160 F.3d 160, 161 n. 1 (3d
Cir. 1998), but his motion for appointment of counsel is denied, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 3006A(a)(2)(B).

-- 6 of 6 --