Illescas v. Annucci

Background

Silvio R. Illescas, who was representing himself, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law providing a way to seek relief for constitutional violations by people acting under state authority. He alleged Eighth Amendment violations involving his medical treatment and also identified Fourteenth Amendment and New York constitutional claims in the action. The opinion’s discussion and conclusion address his Eighth Amendment claims.

According to the Second Amended Complaint, Illescas was taken from Green Haven Correctional Facility to Vassar Brothers Medical Center on April 9, 2020. Medical personnel diagnosed him with conditions including acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, COVID-19 infection, pneumonia, abnormal liver enzymes, elevated troponin, and a non-ST-elevated heart attack. He alleged that medical personnel did not warn him about serious potential side effects of his medication regimen and that an unidentified doctor told him he had a fifty-percent chance of survival.

The defendants who moved to dismiss were Anthony J. Annucci; Jesse M. Wolstein; Vassar Brothers Medical Center; Daniel E. Laurie; Sajin A. Pillai; Hector I. Ojeda-Martinez; Sehrish Shahid; and Robert U. Mmereole. They relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), concerning subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), concerning whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court first considered the claim against Annucci. It had previously dismissed that claim because Illescas had not shown Annucci’s personal involvement. The court held that the Second Amended Complaint and Illescas’s opposition papers still did not provide substantive allegations showing that Annucci directly participated in, failed to remedy after learning about, created a policy causing, or was grossly negligent in managing subordinates involved in the alleged constitutional violations. The court also stated that receiving complaints or holding a high-ranking position was not enough to establish personal involvement.

The court next considered the claims against the Vassar Defendants and Wolstein. It had previously ruled that they were not state actors for purposes of § 1983. The court explained that a private party’s conduct may sometimes qualify as state action under a coercion or significant-encouragement test, a close-connection test, or a public-function test. It found that Illescas had not plausibly alleged facts satisfying any of those tests. The allegations showed that the defendants treated him as an inmate, but did not show that the government compelled or significantly encouraged their conduct, that their conduct had a sufficient connection to the government, or that they performed a function traditionally reserved exclusively to the state. The court also rejected Illescas’s conclusory assertion that Wolstein could be liable simply as a private entity that violated his rights.

Ruling

Judge Nelson S. Román granted each moving defendant’s motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claims. The court specifically granted Wolstein’s motion, Annucci’s motion, and the motion filed by the Vassar Defendants. The court stated that these dismissals were without prejudice and granted Illescas leave to file a Third Amended Complaint by January 6, 2025. The new complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the Second Amended Complaint. If Illescas failed to file it by the deadline, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the specified motions and mail the order to Illescas.