Patrick Nicholas v. SCI SMITHFIELD On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle…

ALD-223 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 25-2187
___________
PATRICK NICHOLAS,
Appellant
v.
SCI SMITHFIELD
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01769)
District Judge: Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 25, 2025
Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed September 30, 2025)
_________
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 4 --

2
Appellant Patrick Nicholas, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint.
Because this appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the
District Court’s judgment pursuant to 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
I.
In October 2024, Nicholas filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against
SCI-Smithfield, Nurse Tammy Giola of SCI-Dallas, and Dr. Prince, also of SCI-Dallas.
Nicholas then filed an amended complaint in December 2024. The District Court
screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, determined that the complaint contained
allegations against only SCI-Smithfield, and dismissed the complaint on the ground that
SCI-Smith is not a “person” under § 1983. The Court entered its dismissal without
prejudice and invited Nicholas to file a second amended complaint.
Nicholas proceeded to file a second amended complaint, but listed SCI-Smithfield
as the sole defendant. As in his prior complaints, he alleged that drinking the prison’s
sink water caused him to urinate blood. On June 10, 2025, the District Court dismissed
the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
because neither a prison nor a department within a prison is a person subject to suit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nicholas timely appealed.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the
District Court’s dismissal of Nicholas’s complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373-74 (3d Cir. 2020). A
dismissal for failing to state a claim is proper when “accepting all factual allegations as
true and construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we
determine that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any reasonable reading of the
complaint.” McGovern v. City of Phila., 554 F.3d 114, 115 (3d Cir. 2009).
III.
The District Court properly dismissed Nicholas’s second amended complaint for
failure to state a claim. SCI-Smithfield, the sole defendant, is entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity, see Downey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 968 F.3d 299, 310 (3d Cir.
2020); Lavia v. Pa., Dep’t of Corr., 224 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir. 2000), and is not a
“person” amenable to suit under § 1983, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S.
58, 71 (1989) (holding that “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official
capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983”); see also Fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d
Cir. 1973) (per curiam) (holding that the New Jersey Prison Medical Department was an

-- 3 of 4 --

4
agency of the state and thus not a “person” under § 1983). Moreover, since “[a] District
Court has discretion to deny a plaintiff leave to amend where the plaintiff was put on
notice as to the deficiencies in his complaint, but chose not to resolve them,” Krantz v.
Prudential Invs. Fund Mgmt. LLC, 305 F.3d 140, 144 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam), the
District Court did not err in denying further amendment.
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.1
1 Appellant Nicholas has also submitted a motion requesting that SCI-Smithfield produce
discovery documents related to his complaint. The motion to produce documents is
denied.

-- 4 of 4 --