NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
No. 21-2180 ___________
HENRY UNSELD WASHINGTON, Appellant
v.
JONATHAN BARNHART, Medical Director at SCI Somerset; DR. ROBINSON, Doctor at SCI Somerset; RICHARD IRWIN, Optometrist at SCI Somerset; MARK MAYLE, Ophthalmologist for PA DOC; DR. HUTCHINSON, Doctor at SCI Somerset; J. STRAMAT, Doctor at SCI Somerset; ANGELA JOHNSTON, Nurse Practitioner at SCI Somerset; ROXANNE PLAYSO, Physician Assistant; BRIAN P. HYDE, Healthcare Administrator at SCI Somerset; TESA ADELEKAN, PAC at SCI Somerset; B. COSTEA, A Block Unit Manager at SCI Somerset; LT. CINKO, H Block Lieutenant at SCI Somerset; J.R. MCDONNELL, A Block Officer at SCI Somerset; M.J. FOSTER, H Block Officer at SCI Somerset; K. TURNER, RHU Lieutenant at SCI Somerset; WILLIAM BOWERS; PHILLIP MAUST; HEIDI SROKA; ROBERT SNYDER; R. PESCHOCK; J. GIRONE; ELLIS KAUFFMAN ____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-17-cv-00070) District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson ____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) August 24, 2023 Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 30, 2023)
___________ OPINION * ___________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Henry Washington appeals from the District Court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We will affirm.
In 2017, Washington initiated a pro se civil rights action against prison officials
and medical providers at State Correctional Institution at Somerset (SCI-Somerset). In
his amended complaint, Washington alleged that the defendants had acted with deliberate
indifference in treating his serious medical needs (especially his vision) and prevented
him from freely exercising his religion by depriving him of access to his religious reading
materials. 1 After discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the District Court granted that motion and
entered judgment in favor of the defendants. Washington timely appealed. 2
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Certain medical defendants also filed motions to dismiss. The District Court denied those motions in all respects except that it granted them as to Washington’s claims alleging that the defendants had violated his religious rights. See ECF Nos. 112 & 183. In response to the motions to dismiss, Washington had clarified that he did not intend to assert his free-exercise claims against these defendants. We do not understand Washington to challenge these rulings on appeal, and in any event, the District Court did not err in accepting Washington’s concession. 2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a District Court’s summary judgment order. See Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 2 The crux of Washington’s medical-care claim contests the treatment of his
longstanding vision issues. For context, Washington had been diagnosed with cataracts.
In November 2014 and March 2016, ophthalmologists performed cataract surgeries on
Washington’s right and left eyes, respectively. And, in May 2016, Washington was fitted
for eyeglasses. Over the next two months, Washington presented to sick call at SCI-
Somerset complaining of blurred and deteriorating vision in his right eye, which
presented the basis for this action.
To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim, Washington must demonstrate that he
suffers from a serious medical need and that the prison officials acted with deliberate
indifference in treating that need. See Pearson v. Prison Health Serv., 850 F.3d 526, 534
(3d Cir. 2017). We will assume that Washington’s vision condition presented an
objectively serious medical need. See Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th
Cir. 2014) (a cataract causing complete blindness in one eye presents a serious medical
need). Even so, and as the District Court concluded, Washington failed to adduce
sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable juror to find that the medical providers acted
with deliberate indifference in treating that need. See Pearson, 850 F.3d at 534.
The summer of 2016, Washington continued to report to sick call with vision
issues in his right eye. Thereafter, the prison optometrist, Dr. Richard Irwin, conducted
F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014). Summary judgment is warranted if defendants show “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [they are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
3 four vision examinations for Washington over a fifteen-month timespan (from August
2016 through October 2017), and frequently recommended treating his vision issues with
refraction (i.e., prescription eyeglasses). Washington refused to wear eyeglasses and
instead seemed to request laser surgery treatment; however, his mere disagreement with
the medical treatment is not enough to show deliberate indifference on the part of the
medical defendants. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). Moreover,
where, as here, medical care was provided, courts “presume that the treatment of a
prisoner is proper absent evidence that it violates professional standards of care.”
Pearson, 850 F.3d at 535. To overcome that presumption, Washington could have
pointed to extrinsic evidence or expert medical testimony to show that the treatment
provided fell below a professional standard of care. Id. at 536. Washington did not do
so. Indeed, he failed to point to any evidence demonstrating that the eyeglasses
prescriptions and refraction recommendations offered by Dr. Irwin were so inadequate
that the treatment amounted to “a substantial departure from accepted professional
judgment.” Id. at 539 (quotation marks omitted). Because there is no dispute of material
fact on the deliberate indifference inquiry, summary judgment in favor of the defendants
was proper.
Washington also argues that the medical staff acted with deliberate indifference in
failing to diagnose him with (and treat him for) Whipple’s disease. This claim lacks
merit. Although, for years, Washington has self-reported that he suffers from Whipple’s
disease, his medical records indicated that a biopsy had been conducted and had ruled out 4 such a diagnosis. Accordingly, Washington failed to establish that he suffered from an
objectively serious medical need, and likewise failed to show that the medical providers
acted with deliberate indifference in failing to diagnose him.
Next, Washington argues that prison officials violated his First Amendment rights
and rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42
U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. Washington adheres to a self-created religion that requires him
to promote pan-Afrikanism by, among other things, reading four different Afro-centric
books per day.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
No. 21-2180 ___________
HENRY UNSELD WASHINGTON, Appellant
v.
JONATHAN BARNHART, Medical Director at SCI Somerset; DR. ROBINSON, Doctor at SCI Somerset; RICHARD IRWIN, Optometrist at SCI Somerset; MARK MAYLE, Ophthalmologist for PA DOC; DR. HUTCHINSON, Doctor at SCI Somerset; J. STRAMAT, Doctor at SCI Somerset; ANGELA JOHNSTON, Nurse Practitioner at SCI Somerset; ROXANNE PLAYSO, Physician Assistant; BRIAN P. HYDE, Healthcare Administrator at SCI Somerset; TESA ADELEKAN, PAC at SCI Somerset; B. COSTEA, A Block Unit Manager at SCI Somerset; LT. CINKO, H Block Lieutenant at SCI Somerset; J.R. MCDONNELL, A Block Officer at SCI Somerset; M.J. FOSTER, H Block Officer at SCI Somerset; K. TURNER, RHU Lieutenant at SCI Somerset; WILLIAM BOWERS; PHILLIP MAUST; HEIDI SROKA; ROBERT SNYDER; R. PESCHOCK; J. GIRONE; ELLIS KAUFFMAN ____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-17-cv-00070) District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson ____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) August 24, 2023 Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 30, 2023)
___________ OPINION * ___________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Henry Washington appeals from the District Court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We will affirm.
In 2017, Washington initiated a pro se civil rights action against prison officials
and medical providers at State Correctional Institution at Somerset (SCI-Somerset). In
his amended complaint, Washington alleged that the defendants had acted with deliberate
indifference in treating his serious medical needs (especially his vision) and prevented
him from freely exercising his religion by depriving him of access to his religious reading
materials. 1 After discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the District Court granted that motion and
entered judgment in favor of the defendants. Washington timely appealed. 2
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Certain medical defendants also filed motions to dismiss. The District Court denied those motions in all respects except that it granted them as to Washington’s claims alleging that the defendants had violated his religious rights. See ECF Nos. 112 & 183. In response to the motions to dismiss, Washington had clarified that he did not intend to assert his free-exercise claims against these defendants. We do not understand Washington to challenge these rulings on appeal, and in any event, the District Court did not err in accepting Washington’s concession. 2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a District Court’s summary judgment order. See Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 2 The crux of Washington’s medical-care claim contests the treatment of his
longstanding vision issues. For context, Washington had been diagnosed with cataracts.
In November 2014 and March 2016, ophthalmologists performed cataract surgeries on
Washington’s right and left eyes, respectively. And, in May 2016, Washington was fitted
for eyeglasses. Over the next two months, Washington presented to sick call at SCI-
Somerset complaining of blurred and deteriorating vision in his right eye, which
presented the basis for this action.
To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim, Washington must demonstrate that he
suffers from a serious medical need and that the prison officials acted with deliberate
indifference in treating that need. See Pearson v. Prison Health Serv., 850 F.3d 526, 534
(3d Cir. 2017). We will assume that Washington’s vision condition presented an
objectively serious medical need. See Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th
Cir. 2014) (a cataract causing complete blindness in one eye presents a serious medical
need). Even so, and as the District Court concluded, Washington failed to adduce
sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable juror to find that the medical providers acted
with deliberate indifference in treating that need. See Pearson, 850 F.3d at 534.
The summer of 2016, Washington continued to report to sick call with vision
issues in his right eye. Thereafter, the prison optometrist, Dr. Richard Irwin, conducted
F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014). Summary judgment is warranted if defendants show “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [they are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
3 four vision examinations for Washington over a fifteen-month timespan (from August
2016 through October 2017), and frequently recommended treating his vision issues with
refraction (i.e., prescription eyeglasses). Washington refused to wear eyeglasses and
instead seemed to request laser surgery treatment; however, his mere disagreement with
the medical treatment is not enough to show deliberate indifference on the part of the
medical defendants. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). Moreover,
where, as here, medical care was provided, courts “presume that the treatment of a
prisoner is proper absent evidence that it violates professional standards of care.”
Pearson, 850 F.3d at 535. To overcome that presumption, Washington could have
pointed to extrinsic evidence or expert medical testimony to show that the treatment
provided fell below a professional standard of care. Id. at 536. Washington did not do
so. Indeed, he failed to point to any evidence demonstrating that the eyeglasses
prescriptions and refraction recommendations offered by Dr. Irwin were so inadequate
that the treatment amounted to “a substantial departure from accepted professional
judgment.” Id. at 539 (quotation marks omitted). Because there is no dispute of material
fact on the deliberate indifference inquiry, summary judgment in favor of the defendants
was proper.
Washington also argues that the medical staff acted with deliberate indifference in
failing to diagnose him with (and treat him for) Whipple’s disease. This claim lacks
merit. Although, for years, Washington has self-reported that he suffers from Whipple’s
disease, his medical records indicated that a biopsy had been conducted and had ruled out 4 such a diagnosis. Accordingly, Washington failed to establish that he suffered from an
objectively serious medical need, and likewise failed to show that the medical providers
acted with deliberate indifference in failing to diagnose him.
Next, Washington argues that prison officials violated his First Amendment rights
and rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42
U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. Washington adheres to a self-created religion that requires him
to promote pan-Afrikanism by, among other things, reading four different Afro-centric
books per day. Pursuant to a 2008 Settlement Agreement, Washington is permitted to
keep a total of nine book boxes, see Washington v. Klem, M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:01-CV-
2432, ECF No. 172-2; because Washington had approximately fourteen boxes, prison
officials asked him to reduce his reading materials to comport with that agreement.
Although Washington believed that request violated his rights, Washington consented to
the Settlement Agreement, is bound by its terms, and is entitled to no more than what is
set forth in that agreement. See Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 685 (7th Cir.
2005).
Relatedly, Washington contends that prison officials deprived him of his prison
job officiating basketball games in retaliation for filing grievances and lawsuits against
them. Even assuming arguendo that Washington can establish a prima facie retaliation
claim, see Watson v. Rozum, 834 F.3d 417, 422 (3d Cir. 2016); see also Wisniewski v.
Fisher, 857 F.3d 152, 157 (3d Cir. 2017) (noting that loss of a prison job can be
sufficiently adverse to deter an inmate from exercising his constitutional rights), the 5 prison officials demonstrated that they had a legitimate and non-penological reason to
remove Washington from his job assignment: Washington was unable to maintain high
energy during games. That decision is amply supported by the record, particularly in
light of Washington’s various (and well-documented) health issues. See Watson, 834
F.3d at 426 (noting that courts assess “the quantum of evidence” in determining whether
a prison official’s disciplinary action was within the bounds of his or her discretion).
There is no genuine issue of material fact that Washington’s loss of his prison job was
reasonably related to his health concerns, and that Washington would have lost that job
irrespective of his grievance-filing activities. Id.
Finally, Washington argues that the prison officials treated him differently than
similarly situated white inmates by denying him access to medical care, prohibiting him
from accessing his religious materials, refusing to move him to a top-tier cell, and
refusing to let him officiate basketball games. Other than his conclusory allegations
about discriminatory treatment, Washington presented no facts from which a jury could
find that he was treated differently than similarly situated white inmates. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009) (concluding that a bald allegation that the defendants’
actions were motivated by discriminatory animus was not entitled to the presumption of
truth); Nitkin v. Main Line Health, 67 F.4th 565, 571 (3d Cir. 2023) (explaining that, to
withstand a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff “must point to concrete evidence in
the record that supports each . . . essential element of his case,” cannot rest on bare or
conclusory allegations and must, instead, “set forth specific facts establishing a triable 6 issue”) (quotations omitted). Summary judgment in favor of the defendants on these
claims was thus proper.
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.