Peralta v. KHOURL

Background

Jimy J. Peralta, representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, sued Doctor Khouri, Sergeant El Moackly, and an unnamed correction officer or sheriff’s deputy. He alleged that, while at the Dutchess County Justice and Transition Center, he reported stomach and abdominal pain, diarrhea, loss of appetite, weight loss, and loss of sleep. Khouri ordered a blood test. Peralta alleged that he later learned the test showed a liver infection but received no medication or other treatment. After his transfer to Franklin Correctional Facility, another blood test allegedly showed blood in his urine, and he was taken to an outside hospital and placed on a treatment regimen.

Peralta also alleged that he tried to file a grievance about the lack of medical treatment. He said the unnamed defendant refused to give him a grievance form and directed him to El Moackly, who allegedly told him that he could not complain about medical staff and would have to pay for grievances. Peralta asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing people to seek relief for violations of federal rights by state actors, for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and denial of due process. He also asserted state-law claims for negligence and medical malpractice.

Motions and standard

Khouri and El Moackly filed motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. Peralta did not oppose either motion, despite receiving the motion papers and extensions of time. The court nevertheless reviewed whether the complaint’s factual allegations, assumed true for this stage, were legally sufficient. Because Peralta was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, the court also reviewed the claims against the unnamed defendant under the federal screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Deliberate-indifference claim

The court held that Peralta plausibly alleged a sufficiently serious medical condition. His combined symptoms, diagnosis of a liver infection, lack of treatment, later blood in his urine, and alleged prolonged liver difficulties were enough to satisfy the objective part of a deliberate-indifference claim at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court nevertheless held that the claim against Khouri failed because Peralta did not allege facts showing that Khouri knew or should have known about the liver infection or the resulting risk of harm. The court also held that the claim against Khouri could not be based merely on disagreement about treatment. The deliberate-indifference claims against El Moackly and the unnamed defendant failed because Peralta did not adequately allege that either person was personally involved in failing to treat him. The court noted that receiving or handling a grievance, without more, would not establish the required personal involvement, and Peralta did not allege that either defendant received a written grievance.

Due-process claim

The court dismissed Peralta’s claim that El Moackly and the unnamed defendant violated due process by denying him a prison grievance form. It held that access to a prison grievance procedure is not itself a federally protected constitutional right. The court explained that restricting access to the grievance process did not prevent Peralta from filing a civil lawsuit, so the alleged restriction did not establish a due-process violation.

State-law claims and disposition

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims—over the negligence and medical-malpractice claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court dismissed the federal claims for deliberate indifference and denial of due process with prejudice because Peralta had already amended his complaint and the court found another amendment would be futile.

The court granted Khouri’s and El Moackly’s motions to dismiss. It also dismissed the claims against the unnamed defendant. The court denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court stated that it did not need to decide the defendants’ arguments that Peralta failed to complete required prison grievance procedures.