Sheldon v. Galant
- Nelson Roman
- 7:18-cv-06320
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Sheldon v. Galant, Judge Roman granted Dr. Galant’s motion to dismiss William Sheldon’s medical-care lawsuit under Section 1983 as inadequately pleaded and untimely.
William Sheldon’s § 1983 medical-care claims against Dr. Frank Galant were dismissed, and the case was closed. The court did not decide the motion’s qualified-immunity or summary-judgment arguments.
What happened
In Sheldon v. Galant, William Sheldon, who was representing himself, alleged that Dr. Frank Galant and other medical staff at Downstate Correctional Facility were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Sheldon said medication caused tremors and medically induced Parkinson’s disease, and that treatment did not stop the worsening symptoms.
Dr. Galant asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit or, alternatively, enter judgment without a trial. The court ruled that Sheldon’s allegations described, at most, negligence or medical malpractice rather than the serious disregard for a known medical risk required for a constitutional medical-care claim. The court also found that Sheldon did not adequately allege Dr. Galant’s personal involvement and that the Section 1983 claims were filed after New York’s three-year deadline.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Dr. Galant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) in its entirety and directed the Clerk to close the case. Because the complaint failed to state a plausible claim, the court did not decide the portions of the motion concerning qualified immunity or summary judgment.
The detailed version
- Sheldon v. Galant · No. 7:18-cv-06320
- Nelson Roman
- Dec. 6, 2019
Background
William Sheldon, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Dr. Frank Galant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Sheldon alleged that Dr. Galant and unidentified medical staff at Downstate Correctional Facility were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
According to the complaint, Sheldon was prescribed Zyprexa in October 2012. He later developed tremors in his right hand and legs and was told they were a medication side effect. After he complained, medical staff diagnosed tardive dyskinesia and prescribed Cogentin, but the tremors allegedly worsened. Sheldon said testing later confirmed medically induced Parkinson’s disease and that a neurologist told him Zyprexa and delayed treatment were the causes. He also alleged that he filed an administrative grievance and that it was denied.
Dr. Galant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or alternatively requested summary judgment under Rule 56. The motion was unopposed.
Court’s analysis
For an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim under § 1983, a prisoner must allege both an objectively serious medical need and deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference requires more than negligence or medical malpractice; it requires a culpable mental state comparable to criminal recklessness, meaning awareness of a substantial risk of serious harm.
The court concluded that Sheldon’s allegations did not meet that standard. The complaint alleged that Sheldon informed medical staff about the tremors, that he was examined and diagnosed, and that staff prescribed Cogentin to address the side effects. Although that treatment allegedly failed and the tremors worsened, the court found that the allegations described, at most, negligent medical treatment rather than deliberate indifference.
The court separately found that Sheldon had not adequately alleged Dr. Galant’s personal involvement. Sheldon alleged that he complained to Dr. Galant and other clinicians, but he did not allege that Dr. Galant personally participated in the relevant treatment after Cogentin was prescribed, or that Dr. Galant created or continued a policy or custom causing the alleged constitutional violation.
The court also held that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Under the court’s analysis, Sheldon knew or had reason to know of his injury when the tremors began in approximately April 2013. Because a § 1983 claim filed in New York generally has a three-year limitations period, the court determined that the claim should have been filed by April 2016. Sheldon filed the original complaint in June 2018.
Ruling
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Dr. Galant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), without opposition, in its entirety. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion, close the case, and mail Sheldon a copy of the opinion and order. Because the court found that the complaint did not state a plausible claim, it did not decide the portions of Dr. Galant’s motion addressing qualified immunity or summary judgment.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.