Folborg v. Blot

Background

Akil Folborg, who is incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and is representing himself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserted claims arising from the use of chemical spray on November 9, 2021, at Green Haven. The court had granted Folborg permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Because Folborg is a prisoner proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally viable claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that it would read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally, but the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief.

Claims Against Nurse Jane Doe and Robert Bentivegna

Folborg alleged that Nurse Jane Doe was part of the medical response team after the chemical spray was used and that she had “unsuccessfully carried out her duties.” He alleged that Robert Bentivegna was Green Haven’s medical director at the time and was responsible for ensuring proper staff training. Folborg asserted deliberate-indifference claims concerning serious medical needs under § 1983 and the Eighth Amendment, as well as state-law claims.

The court explained that a deliberate-indifference claim requires facts showing both a sufficiently serious medical condition and that the defendant actually knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded it. Negligence or an inadvertent failure to provide adequate care is not enough. A claim against an individual also requires facts showing that the person was personally involved in the alleged violation.

The court held that the allegation that Nurse Jane Doe “unsuccessfully carried out her duties” did not identify what she did or failed to do, or show that she had the required culpable state of mind. The court also held that the allegation that Bentivegna failed to ensure proper staff training did not show that he personally knew of a substantial risk of serious harm or knew that additional training was plainly necessary.

The court therefore dismissed Folborg’s § 1983 claims against Nurse Jane Doe and Bentivegna for failure to state a claim, without prejudice to repleading. Because Folborg likewise did not provide sufficient facts about what either defendant did or failed to do, the court also dismissed his state-law claims against them, without prejudice to repleading. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate these defendants from the docket.

Service and Identification of Defendants

Because Folborg was permitted to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons for Lieutenant Blot, complete the required service form with Blot’s address, and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service. The court stated that service should occur within 90 days after the summons is issued, and that Folborg should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.

The complaint provided enough information for the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify the John Doe correction officer and John Doe sergeant allegedly present during the November 9, 2021 cell extraction. The court directed the New York State Attorney General to determine their identities and service addresses and provide that information to Folborg and the court within 60 days. The court stated that it would treat the complaint as amended once the Doe defendants were identified and would issue a later service order if they were identified.

Discovery and Disposition

The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to the action. Under that rule, the defendants must respond to specified prisoner-case discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.

The order dismissed Folborg’s claims against Bentivegna and Nurse Jane Doe without prejudice to repleading in any amended complaint that Folborg may be authorized to file. It directed service on Lieutenant Blot, required assistance in identifying the Doe defendants, and confirmed that the automatic discovery rule applies to the case. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order on January 21, 2025.