Bright v. Irman Russo, Annucci
- Nelson Roman
- 7:18-cv-11111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 24
In Bright v. Annuccyi, Judge Roman denied Dr. Ruvo’s dismissal motion and partly granted and partly denied the corrections defendants’ motion, leaving some claims alive.
Willie Bright’s lawsuit continues on the claims listed as surviving, while Dr. Anthony Ruvo’s motion was denied and the corrections defendants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part. The claims identified by the court as dismissed with prejudice—including all claims against Nurse Schmidt and Hylton Pharr and the request for injunctive relief—cannot proceed in this action.
What happened
In Bright v. Annuccyi, Willie Bright, representing himself, sued prison employees and private physician Dr. Anthony Ruvo under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged sexual assaults, excessive force, delayed or denied medical care, retaliation, and failures to protect him during incidents in 2015 and 2016.
The court denied Dr. Ruvo’s motion to dismiss. It granted in part and denied in part the corrections defendants’ motion: some claims—including claims involving the alleged assaults and medical-care decisions—will continue, while other claims were dismissed with prejudice, including claims against Nurse Schmidt, all claims against Hylton Pharr, and Bright’s request for an injunction.
Judge Nelson S. Roman ruled that Bright plausibly alleged that Dr. Ruvo acted as a state actor because he allegedly treated Bright under a contract with the corrections department, and that some medical-care claims against prison employees were sufficiently pleaded. The remaining defendants must answer the Second Amended Complaint.
The detailed version
- Bright v. Irman Russo, Annucci · No. 7:18-cv-11111
- Nelson Roman
- June 13, 2024
Background
Willie Bright, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and private physician Dr. Anthony Ruvo. Bright alleged repeated sexual assaults by correctional officers, excessive force, retaliation for testimony he gave in another case, failures to protect him, and denial or delay of medical treatment. The alleged incidents occurred at Green Haven Correctional Facility in 2015 and 2016.
The court considered Dr. Ruvo’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and the corrections defendants’ motion to dismiss part of that complaint. Bright filed his opposition late, after receiving multiple extensions, and the court did not consider it because it violated an earlier deadline. For purposes of the motions, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true.
Rulings on Dr. Ruvo’s Motion
The court denied Dr. Ruvo’s motion to dismiss. Because Dr. Ruvo was a private physician, Bright had to plausibly allege that Dr. Ruvo acted under color of state law, meaning that he acted as a government actor for purposes of § 1983. The court held that Bright met that requirement at the pleading stage by alleging that Dr. Ruvo treated him at a private hospital under a contract with the corrections department.
The court also allowed Bright’s deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Ruvo to proceed. Bright alleged that, after reporting violent sexual assault and rectal bleeding, Dr. Ruvo did not examine the extent of his injuries, provide treatment to stop the bleeding, or prescribe pain medication.
Claims Dismissed with Prejudice
The court dismissed with prejudice the following claims or groups of claims:
- All claims against Nurse Schmidt. - All claims under New York’s hate-crime law. - The First Amendment retaliation claim against Adam Barta connected to the December 2015 assault. - The Eighth Amendment medical-care claims connected to the September 2016 assault against Yaniris Urraca and Hylton Pharr, along with all claims against Pharr. - The Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Orazio Bucolo connected to the February 2016 assault. - The Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Robert Johaneman connected to the September 2016 assault. - The Eighth Amendment medical-care claims connected to the February 2016 assault against Richard Kelly, Christopher Dillon, and Roggers. - The Eighth Amendment medical-care claims connected to the September 2016 assault against Adam Barta, Uzma Qureshi, and Colleen Gleason. - The Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims connected to the September 2016 assault against Thomas Griffin and Donald Wilkins. - Bright’s claim for injunctive relief.
The court dismissed the new claims and defendant that Bright added beyond the limited permission previously given to amend his complaint. It also held that the request for an injunction was barred because Bright alleged past events at a facility where he no longer resided, rather than an ongoing violation of federal law.
Claims That Survive
The court’s order leaves these claims pending:
- Connected to the December 2015 assault: failure-to-protect claims against Anthony J. Annucci, Thomas Griffin, and Donald Wilkins; excessive-force and assault claims against Michael Blot; retaliation claims against Blot and Ersan Kahyaoglu; and a deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Ruvo. - After the December 2015 assault: deliberate-indifference claims against Adam Barta, Uzma Qureshi, and Colleen Gleason; retaliation claims against Qureshi and Gleason; and failure-to-protect claims against Annucci, Griffin, and Yaniris Urraca. - Connected to the February 2016 assault: deliberate-indifference claims against Orazio Bucolo, Susanne Roessel, Thomas Griffin, Donald Wilkins, and the unidentified officers assigned to observe and assist with Bright’s inspection; and sexual-assault and excessive-force claims against Richard Kelly, Christopher Dillon, Roggers, and those unidentified officers. - Connected to the September 2016 assault: a deliberate-indifference claim against Robert Bentivegna; failure-to-protect claims against Annucci, Urraca, and Charlene Cody; and excessive-force and assault claims against Freeman and Robert Johaneman. - Bright’s claim for damages.
Disposition
The court denied Dr. Ruvo’s motion to dismiss. It granted in part and denied in part the corrections defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. The surviving defendants were directed to answer the Second Amended Complaint by July 8, 2024. Judge Nelson S. Roman also denied Bright’s separate motion for injunctive relief, a stay, and appointment of counsel.
Read the full 24-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.