Jose Montanez v. Paula Price, et al.

Scranton, Pennsylvania, pro se Plaintiff used the Defendants on Eighth Amendment violation theories.



The protections afforded by the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act (RA), 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., do not stop at the prison gates. So when an inmate, whether counseled or pro se, claims that prison officials ignored his serious medical needs and failed to accommodate his disability, the courthouse doors must be open for a fair hearing. That was not the case for Appellant Jose Montanez, whose claims were dismissed with prejudice even though his complaint, liberally construed, states an Eighth Amendment

claim against several defendants in their individual capacities, a claim under the RA against Wellpath Care LLC, and a claim under both the ADA and RA against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As to his other claims, Montanez's pleading

was insufficient, but his briefs in opposition to the defendants' motions to dismiss make clear that amendment would not have been futile, so the District Court erred by not granting him leave to amend.

Affirmed in part, reverse in part, and remanded with instructions to allow Montanez to amend his complaint.