Daryle L. Pitts v. GEORGE W. HAYMAN, Acting Commissioner, N.J. Department of Corrections

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 08-2556
_____________
DARYLE L. PITTS,
Appellant
v.
GEORGE W. HAYMAN,
Acting Commissioner, N.J. Department of Corrections;
RONALD H. CATHEL,
Administrator, N.J. State Prison;
MICHELLE R. RICCI,
Associate Administrator, N.J. State Prison;
DONALD MEE, JR.,
Assistant Superintendent, N.J. State Prison;
ALLAN B. MARTIN,
Physician, CMS, Inc.;
J. BETHEA,
Nurse Ombudsman, CMS, Inc.;
LAWRENCE DONKOR,
Physician, CMS, Inc.;
GRACE MELENDEZ,
Physician, CMS, Inc.;
ARLENE TINKER, Physician, CMS, Inc.;
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL
SERVICES, INC.,
CMS, Inc., Health Care Provider, N.J. State Prison
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-2256)
District Judge: Honorable Mary L. Cooper

-- 1 of 4 --

The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We exercise1
appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 9, 2009
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, RENDELL and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: September 10, 2009)
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Daryle Pitts appeals from the order of the District Court dismissing his complaint
under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Pitts, an inmate at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton,
New Jersey, alleged that he was denied necessary medical treatment while in prison. He
filed a complaint pro se, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution; violations of Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and various claims under New
Jersey tort law. Without providing Pitts an opportunity to amend his complaint, the
District Court dismissed Pitts’s federal claims under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).1
“[T]his court has consistently held that when an individual has filed a complaint
under § 1983 which is dismissable [sic] for lack of factual specificity, he should be given
a reasonable opportunity to cure the defect, if he can, by amendment of the complaint and

-- 2 of 4 --

3
that denial of an application for leave to amend under these circumstances is an abuse of
discretion.” Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Darr v. Wolfe,
767 F.2d 79, 81 (3d Cir. 1985)). If a plaintiff fails to request leave to amend in such a
circumstance, the court must inform him that he may amend his complaint within a
specific time period, unless amendment would be futile. Grayson v. Mayview State
Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
In the present case, the District Court dismissed Pitts’s complaint because it failed
to plead allegations with the requisite specificity. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007). The District Court reasoned that Pitts failed to allege that the
named defendants were personally responsible for denying him treatment, and that the
acts or omissions were severe enough to offend “evolving standards of decency.” The
District Court also noted that Pitts failed to name the New Jersey Department of
Corrections as a defendant–since it is the department, not its employees, that receives
federal funds–and failed to specify which of his conditions constitutes a disability under
the ADA. We conclude that these are technical pleading errors readily addressed in an
amended complaint. This is especially true here, where plaintiff obtained counsel after
filing his original complaint.
Because the District Court should have provided Pitts with leave to amend his
complaint before granting the motion to dismiss, we will VACATE the order of the
District Court and REMAND the case, instructing the District Court to grant Pitts leave to

-- 3 of 4 --

We need not address Pitts’s alternative contention—that his original complaint2
complies with FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)— as we conclude that he is entitled to file an amended
complaint, and we assume that newly appointed counsel would desire to do so.
4
amend his complaint under FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a).2

-- 4 of 4 --