Ayuso v. Griffin

Background

Marcus Ayuso, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Superintendent Thomas Griffin, Dr. R. Bentivegna, Correction Officer T. Sawyer, and Commissioner Hearing Officer Eric Gutwein under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people who, while using state authority, violate federal rights. Ayuso alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Ayuso alleged that Sawyer assaulted him at Green Haven Correctional Facility on February 5, 2016, including by hitting and kicking him. Sawyer then issued a disciplinary report charging Ayuso with six rule violations. At the resulting hearing, presided over by Gutwein, Ayuso alleged that he was denied adequate preparation time, witnesses, documents, and an impartial hearing. He was found guilty of all charges and received 270 days in the special housing unit, loss of privileges, and a recommendation that he lose nine months of good-time credit.

An Albany County court later vacated that hearing and ordered a new one because the recording was too poor to prepare a complete transcript. At the rehearing, conducted by a different hearing officer, Ayuso was found guilty of three charges, received 270 days in the special housing unit and loss of privileges, and was credited with time already served. The new hearing recommended a loss of three months of good-time credit. Ayuso also alleged that Griffin failed to investigate a grievance about Sawyer’s alleged use of excessive force.

Ayuso further alleged that, after the assault, Dr. Bentivegna delayed an x-ray, refused to send him to an outside hospital, and did not provide pain medication. An x-ray taken on February 18, 2016, showed a fracture of his right seventh rib. Ayuso alleged that he received pain medication only on March 23, 2016.

Motion and Legal Standards

The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Under that rule, the court considers whether the complaint alleges enough facts to make a legally plausible claim, accepting well-pleaded factual allegations as true and viewing them favorably to the plaintiff. The motion did not seek dismissal of Ayuso’s excessive-force claim against Sawyer.

For a procedural due-process claim, Ayuso had to allege a protected liberty or property interest and constitutionally inadequate procedures. A defective prison disciplinary hearing can be cured by a later rehearing if the prisoner did not suffer a penalty attributable only to the defective hearing. For a supervisory § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege the supervisor’s personal involvement in the constitutional violation.

For an Eighth Amendment medical-indifference claim, Ayuso had to allege both an objectively serious medical need and that the defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. A disagreement over treatment or ordinary medical malpractice is not enough.

Court’s Analysis

Due-process claims against Gutwein and Griffin. The court held that any defects in the March 8, 2016 hearing were cured when the hearing was vacated, a rehearing occurred, and Ayuso received credit for time already served. Because Ayuso did not challenge the second hearing and did not ultimately suffer a penalty attributable to the first hearing, the court dismissed the due-process claim against Gutwein with prejudice. The court dismissed Griffin’s due-process claim for the same reason.

Excessive-force claim against Griffin. The court stated that Griffin could not be held liable merely because he held a supervisory position. Although Ayuso alleged that Griffin received a grievance about the alleged assault, the assault had already ended by the time the grievance was filed. The court concluded that Ayuso did not plausibly allege Griffin’s personal involvement and dismissed the excessive-force claim against Griffin with prejudice.

Falsified disciplinary report. The court held that a prisoner generally has no constitutional right to be free from false accusations in a disciplinary report without additional facts, such as retaliation for exercising a constitutional right. Because Ayuso did not plausibly allege a due-process or retaliation claim based on the report, the court dismissed this claim against Sawyer with prejudice.

Medical-indifference claim against Bentivegna. The court found that Ayuso adequately alleged an objectively serious medical need. It relied on the alleged fractured rib, the 13-day delay before the x-ray, the alleged chronic and substantial pain, and the 47-day delay before he received pain medication. The court rejected, at this stage, the portion of the claim based only on Ayuso’s preference for treatment at an outside hospital.

The court nevertheless held that Ayuso did not allege enough facts showing that Bentivegna acted with the required mental state. The complaint alleged that Bentivegna examined Ayuso, ordered an x-ray, and declined to provide pain medication, but it did not allege facts showing that the delay or treatment decision was intentional, reckless, or undertaken with knowledge of an excessive risk. The court therefore dismissed the medical-indifference claim without prejudice and allowed Ayuso to replead it. The court did not decide Bentivegna’s qualified-immunity defense.

Other Request and Disposition

The court denied without prejudice Ayuso’s request for the court to obtain a video recording concerning his interaction with a nurse, explaining that discovery had not yet begun and that the request could be renewed later.

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. The excessive-force claim against Sawyer remained. Ayuso could file an amended complaint by February 13, 2020, concerning the medical-indifference claim against Bentivegna. The clerk was directed to terminate Gutwein, Griffin, and Bentivegna as defendants.