Akinlawon v. Polanco

Background

Ayotunji Akinlawon, who was representing himself, sued employees of Green Haven Correctional Facility under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that C.O. A.J. Colombos sexually assaulted him on July 28, 2020, while C.O. Roderick A. Robinson held the cell gate open. Akinlawon further alleged that, after he reported the assault, medical personnel did not provide sexually transmitted disease testing or collect a rape kit, and that Dr. John Morley cancelled a planned transfer to an outside medical facility.

The opinion addressed Robinson’s partial motion to dismiss and Morley’s motion to dismiss the claims against him. The court treated Akinlawon’s claims against Robinson as a claim that Robinson failed to intervene in the alleged assault, and his claims against Morley as an Eighth Amendment claim that Morley was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.

Rulings on the Motion to Dismiss

The court held that Akinlawon plausibly alleged Morley’s personal involvement because he alleged that Morley cancelled the transfer for medical testing and a rape kit. The court also assumed, for purposes of the motion, that Akinlawon plausibly alleged that Morley consciously disregarded his medical needs. But the court concluded that Akinlawon had not alleged facts showing that the absence of testing or a rape kit caused a sufficiently serious medical condition under the Eighth Amendment. In particular, he did not allege that he developed an untreated sexually transmitted disease or that the failure to provide the requested care caused chronic or substantial pain or significantly affected his daily activities.

The court did not accept the defendants’ argument concerning immunity under New York Corrections Law § 24 because the argument was not adequately developed. The court nevertheless granted the motion on the defendants’ other grounds. Claims for damages against Robinson and Morley in their official capacities were dismissed because the Eleventh Amendment barred those claims. Requests for injunctive and declaratory relief were dismissed as moot because Akinlawon had been transferred to a different correctional facility. The court also stated that Akinlawon’s Eighth Amendment damages claims against Robinson and Morley in their individual capacities were dismissed without prejudice. He was allowed 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging additional facts and addressing the deficiencies. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

Appointment of Counsel

The court granted Akinlawon’s application for appointment of pro bono counsel. It found that his claims had some likelihood of merit, that he had made efforts to obtain a lawyer, and that his incarceration would hinder his ability to conduct document discovery and depositions. The appointed lawyer’s role was limited to certain document- and video-related discovery, depositions, and possible settlement discussions. Counsel was not required to respond to a later dispositive motion unless the court expanded the assignment. The representation would ordinarily end when discovery was completed.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Robinson and Morley’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the specified damages claims without prejudice, dismissed the official-capacity claims, dismissed the injunctive and declaratory claims as moot, granted the application for pro bono counsel, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions.