Gunn v. Doe

Background

Darrell Gunn, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, filed a pro se civil-rights action alleging that defendants denied him adequate medical treatment. Because he named employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the court treated the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits claims for violations of federal rights by state officials acting under state authority. Gunn had already been granted permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Gunn alleged that, during a May 5, 2016 x-ray examination, Nurse Andy Miller told a Jane Doe x-ray technician that Gunn had killed his former girlfriend. The technician responded twice, “TMI!” After the x-ray, the technician said it showed an abnormality, and the technician and Miller allegedly blamed Gunn for moving during the examination. Gunn disputed that he had moved. Either Miller or the technician ordered another x-ray, during which Gunn alleged that the technician did not provide a protective shield. Gunn sought money damages and described emotional and psychological injuries.

Screening standard

Because Gunn was a prisoner seeking relief against employees of a governmental entity, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that it must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.

Medical-treatment claim

To state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim concerning medical needs, a prisoner must show both an objectively serious medical condition or risk of harm and that the defendant acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. The court described the required risk as a condition of urgency that could produce death, degeneration, or extreme pain, and the required state of mind as awareness of facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm followed by disregard of that risk.

The court concluded that Gunn’s allegations about being falsely accused of moving during the x-ray and not receiving protective gear did not show an objectively serious medical need or that the defendants ignored a substantial risk of harm. The allegations instead suggested a disagreement about whether another examination or protective gear was needed. The court stated that it was inclined to dismiss this claim for failure to state a claim, but it did not dismiss it at that point. Because Gunn was representing himself, the court gave him leave to amend by adding facts showing that the lack of protective gear was seriously harmful and that the defendants knew of the risk but failed to protect him.

Disclosure-of-criminal-history claim

The court treated Miller’s alleged statement about Gunn’s conviction as part of the medical-care claim. To the extent Gunn intended to assert a separate constitutional claim, the court held that the allegations did not state one. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the court explained, government officials may disclose publicly available information such as criminal records. Prisoners may challenge disclosure of medical records by correctional staff, but Gunn alleged disclosure of criminal-history information rather than medical information.

The court also discussed a possible Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect theory. A prisoner may have such a claim when a correctional officer identifies the prisoner’s crime in front of other prisoners and thereby creates a risk of harm. The court found that Gunn had not alleged that anyone other than the x-ray technician learned of his criminal history or that Miller’s disclosure caused other prisoners to target him. The court therefore allowed Gunn to amend this claim by alleging facts showing that Miller’s disclosure placed him at risk.

Leave to amend and order

The court granted Gunn leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to identify the defendants and their addresses, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations, explain the alleged rights violations and injuries, and state the relief sought. The court instructed that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so Gunn would have to include any facts and claims he wished to maintain.

Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Gunn and stated that no summons would issue at that time. The court warned that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed period, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal from the order.