e first request was discarded because he signed

the document with the surname “Ali” rather than his name of commitment and that she would

not process the second request for the same reason. Ali maintains that both slips bore his



at the time an appeal was filed, the court has jurisdiction if, as a result of subsequent events,
there are no longer any claims left to be resolved by the district court.”). We therefore have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

                                               4
name of commitment in addition to “Ali,” and that Helverding had previously processed sick

call requests containing both surnames.

       We conclude that the amended complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment

claim against Helverding. A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment by denying or

delaying reasonable requests by an inmate for medical treatment, provided the challenged

conduct constitutes deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Monmouth County Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326,

346-47 (3d Cir. 1987). The allegations in the amended complaint indicate that Ali was

suffering from a serious medical need at the time he presented the sick call slips to

Helverding. See Spruill, 372 F.3d at 235-36. The allegations also suggest that Helverding

deliberately and arbitrarily refused to process Ali’s requests for medical attention. In

addressing the claim against Helverding, the Commonwealth does not cite to any prison

regulations that indicate that the form of Ali’s requests was improper. Nor does the

Commonwealth address the allegations regarding Helverding’s prior acceptance of sick call

slips bearing both of Ali’s surnames. We therefore do not find support in the record for the

Magistrate Judge’s determination that Ali, rather than Helverding, was responsible for the

delay in receiving medical care.

       As to the allegations against the remaining defendants, we conclude that the amended

co