Wimberly v. Atlantic Dialysis Management Services, LLC

Background

Pro se plaintiff Jason Wimberly asked the court to reconsider its April 29, 2025 order dismissing his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. He argued that Atlantic Dialysis Management Services, LLC failed to properly enter or adjust standing orders to address his scheduling needs. He also argued that Atlantic’s policy prohibiting patients from rescheduling more than one dialysis appointment in a week was discriminatory and retaliatory.

Wimberly separately sought a temporary restraining order, an emergency order intended to prevent a party from taking specified action while a case proceeds. He asked the court to stop Atlantic from enforcing the rescheduling policy. He relied on the disability statutes, federal Medicaid regulations, and New York state and local laws. Atlantic appeared to concede that the policy existed but argued that it was lawful and nonretaliatory.

Wimberly also asked to file medical records under seal. The court granted that motion because courts routinely allow personal medical information to be filed under seal.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally requiring an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Wimberly identified no change in the law, new evidence, or clear legal error. The court said that repeating arguments about its earlier application of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act was not a proper basis for reconsideration.

The court also rejected Wimberly’s argument that Atlantic’s alleged status as a state actor changed the analysis, stating that the accommodation requirements under Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act are identical. The court further stated that none of Atlantic’s alleged actions violated Wimberly’s constitutional rights. The motion for reconsideration was denied.

Temporary Restraining Order

The court applied the same standard used for a preliminary injunction. Wimberly had to show, among other things, that he was likely to succeed on the merits and likely to suffer irreparable harm—harm that cannot adequately be remedied later and is likely and imminent rather than remote or speculative.

The court found that Wimberly was unlikely to succeed because he did not identify an instance of disability discrimination or a failure to accommodate his disability. It also found speculative his claim that his disability would require more than one rescheduled appointment in a week. The court stated that the cited Medicaid regulation did not provide a private right of action under these circumstances.

The court found no imminent injury. Wimberly identified only the possibility that a future application of the policy might require him to seek emergency dialysis. His allegation that he was denied an opportunity to reschedule on June 7, 2025 did not establish imminent injury because it involved one past incident and he did not allege that he lost access to dialysis services. The court also stated that the allegations might not satisfy the constitutional requirement for a current or imminent injury needed to seek an injunction.

The court separately found that Wimberly was unlikely to prevail on retaliation. It relied on the principle that when a policy applies to everyone regardless of whether they engaged in protected activity, applying the policy does not plausibly show a connection to a person’s exercise of rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The motion for a temporary restraining order was denied.

Disposition

Judge Oetken ordered that Wimberly’s motion for reconsideration was DENIED, his motion for a temporary restraining order was DENIED, and his motion to seal ECF No. 54-1 was GRANTED. The court stated that the case was closed and that further relief had to be sought through a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit or a newly filed action. The Clerk was directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 50, 54, and 58.