Gomez v. Francis DelGrosso

Background

Santiago Gomez, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Westchester County; several Westchester County Department of Corrections officials and correctional officers; Correct Care Solutions, LLC; and M.D. Alexis Gendell. The court had previously dismissed Gomez’s claim against law librarian Kaseithia M. Hewitt. Gomez brought claims under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

Gomez alleged that he was held at the Westchester County Jail beginning in April 2018 while suffering fractures to his left ankle and right fourth metacarpal. He claimed that officials provided inadequate medical care, discharged him from the infirmary too soon, transferred him to an old jail facility with poor conditions, and failed to accommodate his physical limitations. He also alleged that officials retaliated against him for filing prison grievances and a prior lawsuit by transferring him and ending his law-library clerk position.

Motions and governing standard

The Correct Care Solutions defendants and the County defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motions and read Gomez’s filings liberally because he was representing himself.

The court declined to treat Gomez’s claims against the Correct Care Solutions defendants as abandoned merely because his opposition did not separately address every argument. It concluded that his filing, read liberally, opposed the medical defendants’ entire motion.

First Amendment retaliation

Gomez alleged that he filed prison grievances and added claims against officials in a prior lawsuit. The court held that these activities were constitutionally protected. It also held that Gomez plausibly alleged that his transfer from the infirmary to the old jail and his termination from the law-library position could deter a person of ordinary firmness from filing grievances or lawsuits.

The court further found a sufficient alleged connection between the protected activity and the adverse actions at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Gomez alleged that Sergeant Martinez told him Warden DelGrosso directed his transfer and instructed Sergeant Hogue to fire him, and that the transfer was happening because Gomez had recently filed a lawsuit. The retaliation claim against DelGrosso, Hogue, and Martinez therefore could proceed.

The court dismissed the retaliation claim against Correctional Officers Chestnut, Luis, and Grant. It found no sufficient allegations that those officers personally participated in retaliation connected to Gomez’s grievances or lawsuit. The opinion’s discussion refers in one place to Deputy Commissioner Diaz in connection with this group, but the specific dismissal paragraph identifies Chestnut, Grant, and Luis.

Equal protection and due process

The court dismissed Gomez’s equal-protection claim concerning jail conditions. Gomez did not allege that he belonged to a protected class, that defendants treated him differently from similarly situated people because he filed grievances or a lawsuit, or facts supporting a “class-of-one” theory.

The court also dismissed his due-process claims concerning housing, confinement, his discharge from the infirmary, and termination from the law-library job. It explained that inmates generally have no protected liberty interest in choosing their housing or a particular prison job, and Gomez did not allege disciplinary procedures that triggered the claimed protections. The court also stated that he was not entitled to due process for discharge from the infirmary.

Medical care and conditions of confinement

The court applied the more lenient standard used for pretrial detainees because the parties disagreed about whether Gomez was a pretrial detainee or an alleged parole violator, and the defendants applied that standard. The court dismissed the deliberate-indifference claim concerning medical care. It found that Gomez alleged fractures, treatment in the infirmary for three months, surgery, continued access to a wheelchair, and Tylenol instead of a narcotic, but did not plausibly allege an objectively serious deprivation of adequate medical care. It also found insufficient allegations of personal involvement by Commissioner Spano, Deputy Commissioner Diaz, and Warden DelGrosso.

The court dismissed the conditions-of-confinement claim. Although Gomez alleged feces and a urine odor in his cell, stagnant and excessive heat, damaged floors and walls, slippery showers, and a day room without a bathroom and other facilities, the court found that he had not plausibly alleged conditions posing an unreasonable risk of serious harm to his health or safety.

Conspiracy claims

The court dismissed Gomez’s conspiracy claims under Sections 1983 and 1985. It held that a conspiracy claim generally requires an underlying constitutional violation, and that Gomez did not allege enough facts showing an agreement or meeting of the minds among the officials. The court also found that the Section 1985 claim lacked sufficient allegations of a conspiracy motivated by class-based discriminatory intent.

Municipal-policy claims

The court dismissed Gomez’s claims against Westchester County and Correct Care Solutions under the rule commonly called Monell. Such a claim requires facts plausibly showing that an official policy or custom caused a constitutional injury. The court found Gomez’s allegations about inadequate training, wrongful confinement, improper housing, discouraging grievances, deliberate indifference, and refusal to prescribe Percocet conclusory or otherwise insufficient. It also rejected claims based only on the entities’ employment of alleged wrongdoers.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

The court dismissed Gomez’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim against the County and Correct Care Solutions. Gomez alleged that officials failed to provide accessible shower features and maintained inadequate ramps. The court held that he did not plead the elements of an ADA claim and that broken bones usually are temporary impairments rather than disabilities under the statute. Gomez did not explain why his fractures should be treated differently.

Disposition

The court granted the Correct Care Solutions defendants’ motion. It granted in part and denied in part the County defendants’ motion. Gomez’s remaining claim is a Section 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim against Warden DelGrosso, Sergeant Hogue, and Sergeant Martinez. Those defendants were ordered to file an answer by February 24, 2020. The clerk was directed to terminate the other listed defendants and both motions. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.