Ellis v. Kim

Background

Erick Ellis brought this case without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He sued Kyoung Kim, Robert Bentivegna, and Lewis Boyd under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows people to seek relief for constitutional violations by state actors. Ellis asserted claims based on the First Amendment and the Eighth Amendment.

Ellis alleged that Kim, a healthcare provider, prescribed or continued a blood thinner despite other physicians’ recommendations that he stop taking it. Ellis claimed that the medication delayed treatment for his hernia and contributed to severe pain and profuse bleeding after oral surgery in March 2021. Ellis alleged that Bentivegna, Kim’s supervisor, did not act on Ellis’s medical complaints and grievances. Ellis also alleged that Boyd, a correctional officer, ordered him to lift and move a mattress shortly after a hemorrhoidectomy, despite Ellis telling Boyd that his treating physician had ordered him not to lift anything. Ellis said he then felt a popping sensation and experienced extreme pain, requiring a hospital stay.

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint adequately states a legal claim.

Official-Capacity Claims

The court dismissed Ellis’s § 1983 claims against the defendants in their official capacities under Rule 12(b)(1). The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred those claims because they were treated as claims against the state, and the opinion stated that neither of the relevant exceptions applied. The court emphasized that this ruling did not affect the claims against the defendants in their individual capacities.

Medical-Care Claims

The court dismissed Ellis’s Eighth Amendment medical-care claims insofar as they were based on alleged conduct before June 6, 2020, because the applicable three-year limitations period had expired. The court also denied Ellis’s request to amend to remove the older allegations, finding amendment futile.

As to Kim, the court held that Ellis plausibly alleged serious harm based on the severe pain and profuse bleeding he experienced after oral surgery. But the court found that Ellis did not adequately allege that Kim acted with the required deliberate indifference. The court characterized the allegations as, at most, negligence or a disagreement about medical treatment. The court therefore granted dismissal of the medical-care claims against Kim.

As to Bentivegna, the court held that Ellis did not adequately allege Bentivegna’s personal involvement in a constitutional violation. Ellis alleged that he spoke with Bentivegna about Kim’s treatment and that Bentivegna did not respond to complaints, but the court found those allegations insufficient. The court therefore granted dismissal of the medical-care claims against Bentivegna.

As to Boyd, the court held that Ellis plausibly alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Taking Ellis’s allegations as true at this stage, Boyd knew of the treating physician’s instruction not to lift anything, ignored it, and ordered Ellis to move the mattress, allegedly causing severe pain. The court denied the motion to dismiss the first and third claims for relief against Boyd.

Failure-to-Supervise Claim

The court granted dismissal of Ellis’s fifth claim, which alleged that Bentivegna failed to supervise Kim. The court held that § 1983 does not impose supervisory liability merely because a person is a supervisor. Ellis did not allege an underlying constitutional violation directly committed by Bentivegna for this claim.

First Amendment Retaliation Claim

The court dismissed Ellis’s second claim for First Amendment retaliation. It first dismissed as time-barred the portions based on alleged retaliation before June 6, 2020. As to the timely allegations, the court accepted that filing grievances is constitutionally protected activity but held that Ellis did not adequately allege an adverse action. The court found that his allegations amounted at most to a disagreement over Kim’s medical treatment and did not adequately allege that Kim or Bentivegna denied him medical care because of his grievances.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity can protect public officials from damages when their conduct did not violate clearly established law or when it was objectively reasonable for the official to believe the conduct was lawful. The court declined to dismiss Boyd on that basis because the complaint adequately alleged a violation of the clearly established right not to have a treating physician’s medical recommendation deliberately disregarded. The court noted that Boyd could revisit qualified immunity after discovery. The court did not address qualified immunity for Kim and Bentivegna because it had already found that Ellis failed to state claims against them.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The motion was denied as to Ellis’s first and third claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Boyd. The motion was granted as to Ellis’s second claim for First Amendment retaliation, fourth and sixth claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Kim and Bentivegna, and fifth claim for failure to supervise against Bentivegna. The Clerk was directed to terminate Kim and Bentivegna as defendants, and Boyd was ordered to answer the complaint within 14 days.