Greene v. Martuscello

Background

Terrance Greene, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility when the events occurred, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state officials. He proceeded without a lawyer. Greene alleged that he was cut across his left eye during a melee on February 15, 2024, and later required 28 stitches. He claimed that prison personnel failed to clean his wound, ignored requests for help and medication, failed to provide prescribed wound care and antibiotics, and delayed treatment until he developed an infection and facial cellulitis. He also alleged that Officer K. Barnes filed a false misbehavior report by omitting that a weapon was used and that Greene was not involved in the melee.

The defendants asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The opinion’s analysis focused on whether Greene alleged enough facts to plausibly state constitutional claims and whether each defendant was personally involved.

Claims Against Martuscello, Kopp, and Barnes

The court dismissed the claims against Commissioner Daniel Martuscello because Greene did not allege that Martuscello personally participated in, directed, or knew about the alleged misconduct. The court rejected claims based on Martuscello’s supervisory position, including allegations that he was responsible for weapons at Sing Sing or for informing New Jersey officers about Greene’s medical needs.

The court dismissed the claims against Superintendent Marlyn Kopp because Greene did not allege that Kopp knew about the injury or medical condition when she signed the transfer documents. Those documents were signed on January 10 and 11, 2024, before the February 15 injury. The court also found that Greene did not allege that Kopp later learned about the injury or medical needs before the February 20 transfer.

The court dismissed the claim against Officer K. Barnes because a prisoner generally has no constitutional right to be free from a false misbehavior report by itself. Greene did not allege that the report caused a denial of due process or was filed in retaliation for protected conduct.

Medical-Care Claims

For an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim, a prisoner must plausibly allege both a serious medical need and deliberate indifference—meaning that the defendant knew about and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the claim against John Doe #1. Greene alleged that the nurse wrapped a severe facial wound without cleaning it, despite Greene’s requests, and that the wound later became infected. The court found that the injury was sufficiently serious and that the allegations plausibly suggested deliberate indifference at the pleading stage.

The court dismissed the claim against John Doe #2. Although Greene alleged that the officer ignored his requests for assistance while he waited for transport to the hospital, the court found that Greene did not allege enough facts showing that the officer knew the extent of the injury or deliberately disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court dismissed the claims against John Does #3 and #4. They transported Greene to and from Westchester Medical Center, but the court found no allegation that they interfered with his treatment, prevented treatment, or were personally responsible for the failure to provide antibiotics and wound care after his return.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the claim against John Doe #5. Greene alleged that, after his condition worsened and he had been diagnosed with an infection and facial cellulitis, the nurse ignored his request for prescribed medication on February 19, 2024. The court found those allegations sufficient to plausibly support deliberate indifference.

The court dismissed the claim against John Doe #6. Greene alleged that the officer refused his request for an emergency sick call on February 16, 2024, but the court found that he did not allege enough facts showing that the officer knew of a serious risk, caused substantial harm, or contributed to the later complications.

The court dismissed the claims against New Jersey officers John Does #7 and #8. The court found that their role was to transport Greene under an Interstate Agreement on Detainers and that Greene had not yet missed the follow-up appointment when the transfer occurred. Greene also did not allege that the officers intentionally delayed his treatment or that the transfer caused substantial harm.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed with prejudice the claims against Martuscello, Kopp, and Barnes. It dismissed without prejudice the claims against John Does #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, and #8 and granted Greene leave to replead those claims in a Second Amended Complaint. The claims against John Does #1 and #5 were not dismissed.

The court ordered the New York State Attorney General to identify John Does #1 through #8 and provide their service addresses and, when appropriate, badge numbers within 60 days. Greene may file a Second Amended Complaint concerning John Does #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, and #8 within 30 days after receiving that information. The order states that if Greene does not file by the deadline, the claims dismissed without prejudice will be deemed dismissed with prejudice.