OPINION AND ORDER
Re: ECF No. 40
MAUREEN P. KELLY, Chief Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Richard Heary ("Plaintiff") is an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC"), and is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Greene ("SCI-Greene"). Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant Doctor Jin ("Dr. Jin" or "Defendant"), alleging that Dr. Jin failed to provide adequate medical care to Plaintiff and that Dr. Jin was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs in violation of his rights provided by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (the "Motion") submitted on behalf of Dr. Jin. ECF No. 40. For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be denied.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
It appears that Plaintiff sought medical treatment at SCI-Greene for agonizing pain in his left hand sometime in the middle of 2012.
Plaintiff alleges in the Amended Complaint that Dr. Jin told him that there was "nothing else that could be done and told plaintiff that he needed outside medical treatment and he shouldn't have come to prison, that plaintiff wouldn't be going through what he was going through and all he can give him at this time was Ibuprofen ("Motrin")."
In response to the original Complaint, the DOC Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and an accompanying brief on May 16, 2016. ECF Nos. 15, 16. The Medical Defendants, including Dr. Jin, filed a Motion to Dismiss and an accompanying brief on July 29, 2016. ECF Nos. 28, 29. Plaintiff filed an Affidavit/Declaration in Opposition on August 22, 2016, ECF No. 33, and on December 5, 2016, this Court issued an Opinion and Order granting the Motions to Dismiss. ECF No. 38. In the Opinion and Order, this Court found that it was apparent from the original Complaint that Plaintiff's claims against Dr. Jin sounded in negligence and did not give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation.
On December 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Dr. Jin. ECF No. 39. Contrary to this Court's prior Order, Plaintiff has not confined his amendment to his Eighth Amendment claim but has alleged multiple other claims for "damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging negligence. . . . [and] the torts of negligence and malpractice.
Dr. Jin filed a Motion to Dismiss and accompanying brief on January 7, 2017. ECF Nos. 40, 41. Plaintiff filed a "Motion is Opposition" and Memorandum of Law in Support. ECF Nos. 45, 46. As such, the second Motion to Dismiss of Dr. Jin is ripe for review.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In assessing the sufficiency of the complaint pursuant to a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint and all reasonable factual inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
A. Section 1983
As set forth in the "Introduction" of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has brought his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"). Section 1983 provides that:
42 U.S.C. § 1983. "Section 1983 provides remedies for deprivations of rights established in the Constitution or federal laws. It does not, by its own terms, create substantive rights."
The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment requires prison officials to provide basic medical treatment to those whom it has incarcerated and that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.
In order to establish deliberate indifference, a "plaintiff must make an `objective' showing that the deprivation was `sufficiently serious,' or that the result of defendant's denial was sufficiently serious. Additionally, a plaintiff must make a `subjective' showing that defendant acted with a `sufficiently culpable state of mind.'"
Moreover, it is well established that an inmate is not entitled to a particular course of treatment or to have particular tests performed.
Furthermore, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that, under the deliberate indifference standard, prison medical authorities have "considerable latitude" in exercising this judgment in the diagnosis and treatment of inmate patients and that Court's should "disavow any attempt to second-guess the propriety or adequacy of a particular course of treatment which remains a question of sound professional judgment."
B. Dr. Jin's Motion to Dismiss
As previously discussed, Plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference against Dr. Jin is based on the adequacy of the care Dr. Jin provided following Plaintiff's surgery. In particular, Plaintiff complains that Dr. Jin failed to adequately address the pain that Plaintiff was allegedly suffering from and failed to refer Plaintiff to an outside specialist or another doctor.
Dr. Jin contends that Plaintiff's claim against him should again be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to allege any additional facts in the Amended Complaint from which it could be inferred that Dr. Jin was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical need so as to warrant reconsideration of this Court's prior finding that Plaintiff has failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim. In particular, Dr. Jin argues that because Plaintiff received medical treatment in the form of procedure/surgery, post-operative consultations and medication for pain, the nature of Plaintiff's complaint against Dr. Jin is that Plaintiff simply desires a different course of treatment.
Contrary to Dr. Jin's assertion, however, Plaintiff has alleged additional facts in the Amended Complaint to support his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Jin told Plaintiff that he needed outside medical treatment; that all he could give Plaintiff for the pain was Motrin; and, because Plaintiff was doing life in prison, that was the only treatment Plaintiff would receive. Based on the additional facts alleged, including but not limited to the averments in paragraphs 8 through 16 of the amended Complaint, the Court finds that these facts are sufficient to state a claim of deliberate indifference against Dr. Jin, particularly when coupled with Plaintiff's assertions that he suffered severe pain as a result of the in-house surgery that Defendant Dr. Jin performed; that he subsequently complained to Dr. Jin about the pain on numerous occasions and that he was unable to move "his pinky finger and close his hand;" and that, despite repeated complaints of pain and that the Motrin was not working, Dr. Jin would only prescribe Motrin and would not send him to an outside doctor.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Motion to Dismiss submitted by Dr. Jin is properly denied. The Court also finds that paragraph 26 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, wherein he raises claims of negligence and malpractice against Dr. Jin, is properly stricken. Plaintiff did not raise state law claims in the original Complaint and was granted leave to amend the Complaint only to allege additional facts to make out an Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Jin. Because Plaintiff's state law claims for negligence and malpractice are new claims not contemplated by this Court's Order allowing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint, they will be stricken from the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff may proceed only with the claim of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs in violation of his rights provided by the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this 13