Gunn v. Betivegna

Background

Darrell Gunn, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors who violate federal rights. He sued Dr. Robert V. Betivegna in both his individual and official capacities and sued the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). Gunn sought declaratory relief, unspecified injunctive relief, and money damages.

Gunn alleged that Ensure, a nutritional drink, had been prescribed to treat conditions including severe weight loss, malnutrition, fatigue, nausea, loss of appetite, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and paranoia. He alleged that Dr. Betivegna, identified as the Health Service Director at Green Haven Correctional Facility, discontinued the prescription even though other prisoners with similar diagnoses, signs, and symptoms received Ensure.

Screening standard

Because Gunn was incarcerated and had permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers generously, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims against DOCCS

The court held that DOCCS was an arm of the State of New York and therefore protected by the Eleventh Amendment, which generally prevents states and their arms from being sued in federal court without a waiver or valid congressional authorization. The court stated that New York had not waived this protection and that Congress had not removed it when it enacted Section 1983. The court therefore dismissed Gunn’s Section 1983 claims against DOCCS under the Eleventh Amendment immunity doctrine.

Medical-care claim against Dr. Betivegna

For an Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate medical care, a prisoner must allege both an objectively serious medical condition and that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference—meaning the defendant knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. The court concluded that Gunn’s allegation that Dr. Betivegna stopped the Ensure prescription, while other prisoners with similar symptoms received it, did not show an objectively serious medical need or that Dr. Betivegna ignored a substantial risk of harm. The court characterized the allegations as suggesting a disagreement about the proper treatment and concluded that they did not show an urgent condition that could cause death, deterioration, or extreme pain. It dismissed the deliberate-indifference claim for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

State-law claims and leave to amend

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Gunn might be asserting. The court nevertheless granted Gunn 30 days to file an amended complaint that complied with the stated requirements. The order directed him to submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 20-CV-0253 (CM). No summons would issue at that time. If he did not file an amended complaint, the court stated that it would enter judgment and close the case.

Disposition

The court dismissed Gunn’s Section 1983 claims under the doctrines of Eleventh Amendment immunity and failure to state a claim. It declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. 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. The order was issued by Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon.