Zuleta v. Krom

Background

Hector Munoz Zuleta, proceeding without a lawyer, sued J. Krom, P. Page-Cannonier, and Dr. M. Gusman for damages based on alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs, medical malpractice, and misconduct. The complaint invoked 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

According to the complaint, Munoz Zuleta began experiencing pain from an inguinal hernia in March 2021. Prison medical staff diagnosed the hernia and temporarily restricted him from lifting more than five pounds. He alleged that his requests for care, including complaints, sick-call slips, letters, and grievances, did not result in timely surgery. Prison correspondence stated that he had been evaluated by a general surgeon in May 2022 and was still awaiting surgery in October 2022. In February 2023, he was again told that surgery had not been scheduled. He alleged that the hernia ruptured on March 11, 2023, and that he was taken to a hospital for emergency repair on May 12, 2023.

Analysis

The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and construed the pro se complaint liberally. Munoz Zuleta brought one federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by deliberately disregarding his serious medical need.

The court dismissed the claim insofar as it sought damages from the defendants in their official capacities. It concluded that the Eleventh Amendment generally protects New York and its state agents from such federal damages claims, and that New York had not waived that protection for this claim. The court did not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation.

The court denied dismissal of the claim against the defendants in their individual capacities. It held that the alleged painful hernia, rupture, extended delay, and emergency surgery were sufficient at the pleading stage to satisfy the objective requirement that the medical need be serious. The allegations also plausibly suggested the required subjective disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm because the delay allegedly continued despite repeated complaints, knowledge of the hernia, and the lack of a surgery date.

The court further concluded that Munoz Zuleta adequately alleged each defendant’s personal involvement. The complaint alleged that Krom knew about the serious medical need and allowed the delay to continue; that Page-Cannonier knew about the complaints, grievances, and prolonged hernia; and that Gusman was responsible for his health care and allowed the surgery to be excessively delayed. The court rejected the argument that Krom could not be liable because he was a nonmedical administrator, explaining that nonmedical prison personnel may be liable when they intentionally delay or interfere with access to medical care.

The court did not consider the defendants’ qualified-immunity argument at that time because the defendants offered only generic legal citations without specific argument. To the extent the complaint alleged state-law medical-malpractice or negligence claims, those claims survived because the defendants’ motion did not address them.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss insofar as Munoz Zuleta asserted the deliberate-indifference claim against them in their official capacities and denied the motion insofar as he asserted that claim against them in their individual capacities. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion and scheduled a telephone conference for October 27, 2025, at 10:30 a.m.