Rutherford v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC

Background

Rayvon Rutherford, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued Correct Care Solutions, LLC; New York Correct Care Solutions Medical Services, P.C.; Dr. Raul Ulloa; Dr. Alexis Gendell; Westchester County; and several Westchester County Jail officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The pending motions sought dismissal of Rutherford’s third amended complaint.

Rutherford alleged that he had continuing pain and limited use of his right hand and wrists after an earlier tendon surgery. He claimed that medical staff provided medication, physical therapy, X-rays, and repeated examinations but that Dr. Ulloa refused to refer him to an orthopedic hand specialist and Dr. Gendell approved his treatment without personally examining him. He also alleged that jail officials ignored or mishandled grievances, threatened or retaliated against him for filing grievances and a prior lawsuit, placed him in keep-lock housing, transferred him to quarters in the old jail, damaged greeting cards, and lost or withheld book packages.

Court’s analysis

The court evaluated the motions under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint contains enough factual allegations to make a claim legally plausible. It accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motions and interpreted Rutherford’s filings liberally because he was representing himself.

The court concluded that Rutherford’s medical-care allegations did not plausibly show deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The complaint described continuing treatment, including medication, physical therapy, X-rays, and repeated assessments. The court viewed Rutherford’s allegations primarily as a disagreement about whether he should have received surgery or a specialist referral, rather than as facts showing that the medical defendants failed to provide reasonable care. The medical-care claim was dismissed.

The court found that Rutherford’s claims against Sergeant Hector Lopez duplicated claims in his earlier related case, so those claims could not proceed in this action. The court did not find the claims against Captain Christopher Roberts, Sergeant Michael Randazzo, or Correction Officer Harrington duplicative because those individuals were not defendants in the earlier case and the earlier court had not treated Rutherford’s related letters and affidavit as amendments adding them.

The court allowed one First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed. Rutherford alleged that Captain Thomalen placed him in keep-lock housing because he filed grievances against Sergeant Lopez and filed a lawsuit, and quoted Thomalen as asking how many grievances he had written before saying he was going to a place where people like to write grievances and lawsuits. The court held that these allegations plausibly connected protected grievance activity to adverse action. It rejected qualified-immunity dismissal at this stage.

The court dismissed Rutherford’s retaliation claims against the other County Defendants because the complaint did not adequately connect their actions to his grievance filings or lawsuit. It also dismissed his due-process claim concerning keep-lock confinement and his transfer to the old jail, concluding that the alleged periods of confinement and conditions did not plausibly establish a protected liberty interest. Claims based only on violations of the jail’s grievance procedures were dismissed because the Constitution does not require an inmate grievance system.

The court dismissed the conspiracy claim because Rutherford did not allege facts plausibly showing an agreement and coordinated action to violate his rights. It also dismissed the claims against CCS and Westchester County based on municipal policy or custom because Rutherford had not adequately alleged an underlying constitutional violation for the medical-care, due-process, or grievance-procedure theories, and had not provided sufficient facts showing an unconstitutional policy or custom of retaliation.

The court found that Rutherford plausibly alleged compliance with New York’s notice-of-claim requirement at this early stage. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over potential state-law claims unrelated to the retaliation claim against Captain Thomalen, but allowed potentially related state-law claims arising from the same events to remain.

Ruling

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted the medical defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted the County’s motion to dismiss. He granted in part and denied in part the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The only remaining claims were Rutherford’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Captain Thomalen and any state-law claims that could be construed from the complaint and arose from the same facts. The Clerk was directed to terminate the other listed defendants from the case, and Captain Thomalen was ordered to answer the surviving claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.