Allah v. Yildiz

Background

Kha’Sun Creator Allah, representing himself, sued Osman Yildiz, Dr. Syed Mahmud, and Carla Steinberg under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All three defendants were employees of the New York State Office of Mental Health. Allah alleged that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious mental-health needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment when he was released from the Residential Crisis Treatment Program at Sullivan Correctional Facility and returned to the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision for transfer to Upstate Correctional Facility.

Allah alleged that he repeatedly told the defendants he would kill himself if returned to Upstate, where he said he had previously harmed himself. The defendants disputed that account. They maintained that Allah appeared stable and denied suicidal thoughts during his evaluations at Sullivan. They also stated that Steinberg promptly reported Allah’s later statement that he would harm himself if sent to Upstate, and that Yildiz and Mahmud evaluated the report but decided it did not justify returning him to the crisis-treatment program.

Allah was transferred to Upstate on November 29, 2016. The opinion states that he swallowed a razor blade there on December 1, 2016. It also states that he was released from custody in or about July 2019.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view disputed evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion and may not resolve credibility disputes or weigh competing evidence at this stage. A party’s sworn statement based on personal knowledge can create a factual dispute if the party is competent to testify about the matters described.

Claims against Yildiz and Mahmud

The court applied the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference standard. Allah had to show both that he faced a sufficiently serious medical condition and that the defendants actually knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and intentionally disregarded it. The court stated that suicidal ideation is an objectively serious medical condition and focused on whether Yildiz and Mahmud knew about and disregarded Allah’s alleged suicide risk.

The court found a genuine dispute of material fact about what Allah told Yildiz and Mahmud during his evaluations. Allah’s sworn declaration stated that he told each of them he would kill himself if returned to Upstate and described his prior self-harm. The defendants’ evidence gave a different account. Because a jury could credit Allah’s account, the court held that a jury could find that Yildiz and Mahmud knew of a substantial suicide risk and intentionally disregarded it.

The court rejected the argument that Allah’s testimony was insufficient merely because it was his own testimony. It also rejected the defendants’ argument that they lacked control over whether DOCCS would ultimately send Allah to Upstate, reasoning that they were responsible for deciding whether to release him from the Sullivan crisis-treatment program.

The court also denied qualified immunity to Yildiz and Mahmud. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate clearly established law or when it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their conduct was lawful. The court held that the disputed facts prevented it from deciding at summary judgment that their actions were objectively reasonable.

The court clarified that Yildiz’s and Mahmud’s later decision not to readmit Allah after Steinberg reported his statement, standing alone, reflected a professional judgment and did not establish deliberate indifference. The factual dispute concerned what Yildiz and Mahmud knew during their earlier meetings with Allah.

Claim against Steinberg

The court granted summary judgment on Allah’s deliberate-indifference claim against Steinberg. Although the parties disputed the precise details of Allah’s interaction with her, Allah did not dispute that Steinberg promptly reported his statement to the RCTP unit chief, Yildiz, Mahmud, and another mental-health social worker. The court held that this immediate escalation was a reasonable response and did not amount to deliberate indifference.

Declaratory relief

The court dismissed Allah’s request for declaratory relief against all defendants. Because Allah had been released from prison, the court held that his request for declarations about the defendants’ duties and alleged constitutional violations was moot, meaning the court could no longer grant meaningful relief on that request.

Disposition

The court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding Allah’s deliberate-indifference claims against Yildiz and Mahmud. It granted the motion regarding the deliberate-indifference claim against Steinberg and granted the motion regarding Allah’s declaratory-relief claim against all defendants. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion.