On July 14, 2005, a federal immigration detainee filed a pro se lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging that he was denied proper medical care for a serious condition in violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff alleged that while he was incarcerated at York County Prison in Pennsylvania (a state facility contracted to hold federal immigration detainees) he suffered from severe pain in his genitals and urinary tract. He was seen and treated by several doctors, but his condition did not improve. Ultimately, one of the treating doctors recommended that he undergo a cystoscopic evaluation (a diagnostic procedure that uses a cystoscope to examine the bladder, lower urinary tract, and prostate gland) by a urologist. The Division of Immigration Health Services of the Department of Homeland Security refused to approve the test on the basis that it was not medically necessary. Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance which was eventually reviewed by the Complaint Review Board, which determined that the treatment was constitutionally required, and that it should be provided immediately. When federal immigration authorities were notified of the Board's decision, plaintiff was transferred to a different facility in Berks County, allegedly to avoid providing the treatment. This lawsuit ensued.

On November 8, 2005, Defendant York County filed a third-party complaint against the federal immigration defendants, seeking an injunction requiring the federal defendants to provide plaintiff and all inmates in its custody with healthcare that was mandated by the U.S. Constitution. The next day, the District Court (Judge James F. McClure Jr.) appointed attorneys with the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project to represent the plaintiff. Appointed counsel subsequently filed a second amended complaint which refined plaintiff's claims and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory damages.

The federal immigration agency defendants moved to dismiss York County's third party complaint. In lieu of replying to plaintiff's second amended complaint, the federal defendants requested and were given numerous extensions, presumably because settlement negotiations were underway. On September 1, 2006, plaintiff filed a stipulation for dismissal of his claims. The details of the settlement were not made part of the Court record and are unknown.

Dan Dalton - 12/28/2007


compress summary