Khan v. Daniel F. Martuscello

Background

Shahab Khan filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that request and screened his original complaint under statutes requiring review of certain complaints filed by people who cannot pay filing fees or who are incarcerated. In a May 2025 order, the court dismissed all claims without prejudice and allowed Khan to amend his complaint.

Khan filed an amended complaint naming Daniel F. Martuscello, III; RPA-C Brady E. Devlin; Carol Moores, MD; Mary Anne Lyons; several unidentified medical personnel associated with Ulster Correctional Facility, Otisville Correctional Facility, and Gouverneur Correctional Facility; and other unidentified medical staff. Khan alleged that he had sleep apnea, was not provided a continuous positive airway pressure machine or other treatment for extended periods, and experienced sleep deprivation, choking, coughing, and difficulty breathing. He alleged that he eventually received a machine in April 2025.

Severance and Transfer

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, which allows claims to be separated, and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a case or claims to be transferred to a more appropriate federal district. It ruled that claims concerning alleged wrongdoing at Rikers Island, Otisville Correctional Facility, and Green Haven Correctional Facility were separate from claims concerning Ulster Correctional Facility, Gouverneur Correctional Facility, and Greene Correctional Facility. The court ordered the first group of claims, along with the defendants associated with them, severed and transferred to the Southern District of New York.

The court expressly made no ruling on whether the transferred claims were sufficiently pleaded, leaving that issue to the Southern District of New York. The Northern District retained the claims arising, if at all, from Khan’s confinement at Ulster Correctional Facility, Gouverneur Correctional Facility, and Greene Correctional Facility.

Eleventh Amendment Claims

The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred claims for money damages under Section 1983 against defendants sued in their official capacities. It dismissed those claims with prejudice under the prisoner-screening statutes.

Medical-Indifference Claims

The court treated the amended complaint as asserting claims under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. That type of claim requires facts showing both an objectively serious medical condition and that a medical provider knowingly and deliberately disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court dismissed the claims against Martuscello, Moores, Lyons, Ulster Dr. Doe, Director Doe, and Gouverneur Dr. Doe because the amended complaint did not describe their personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations. The court also dismissed the claims against the unidentified medical staff and Devlin because Khan did not provide enough detail about when he requested treatment, how often he requested it, what he told the defendants, or how they responded.

The court further reasoned that, even assuming Devlin was involved in delaying the continuous positive airway pressure machine, the complaint did not allege facts showing that the delay significantly affected Khan’s daily activities or caused chronic and substantial pain. The court therefore dismissed the deliberate-medical-indifference claims for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court accepted the amended complaint for filing as the operative pleading, directed the clerk to update the docket, severed and transferred the specified claims, made no ruling on the sufficiency of those transferred claims, and dismissed the amended complaint under the prisoner-screening statutes. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and serve Khan with the decision.