Hamilton v. Westchester County

Background

Davonte Hamilton, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He sued Westchester County, Correct Care Solutions, LLC, Raul Ulloa, Joseph K. Spano, Francis Delgrosso, Karl Vollmer, and Leandro Diaz. Hamilton alleged that he injured his knee while playing basketball on cracked concrete while in the custody of the Westchester County Department of Corrections. He also alleged that he received inadequate follow-up medical care, had difficulty using his housing unit and shower because of his injury, was required to stand on his injured leg during a strip search, and was exposed to hot, humid, and unsanitary housing conditions.

All defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Hamilton did not oppose the motions.

Administrative exhaustion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally requires an incarcerated person to complete available prison grievance procedures before suing about prison conditions. The court held that Hamilton’s claims concerning the basketball court were dismissed without prejudice because he alleged that he appealed only to the jail’s grievance coordinator and did not allege that he completed the additional appeal to the New York State Commission of Corrections Citizen’s Policy and Complaint Review Council.

The court reached a different conclusion for the alleged air-quality and sanitary conditions in Hamilton’s housing unit. Hamilton alleged that Sergeant Kitt refused to accept his grievance. Accepting that allegation as true, the court found that the grievance process may have been unavailable and that non-exhaustion was not clear from the complaint. Those claims therefore survived the exhaustion issue at that stage. The court also declined to dismiss the deliberate-indifference and ADA claims solely because Hamilton did not describe grievance efforts for those claims in detail, because exhaustion need not be pleaded with particularity.

Section 1983 claims

The court dismissed Hamilton’s constitutional conditions-of-confinement claims. Although the allegations about heat, humidity, poor ventilation, difficulty breathing, and rust-colored water dripping from the ceiling were troubling, Hamilton did not allege how long those conditions lasted or when the individual defendants learned about them. He also alleged only that certain defendants were on notice and took no action, which the court found insufficient to show the required mental state of intentional, reckless, or deliberately indifferent conduct. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the cell-conditions claim.

The court also dismissed the claims based on the lack of accessible showers, ramps, or elevators. Hamilton alleged that these conditions lasted for about three weeks or less, that showering was painful and physically impractical, and that he could not reach outdoor recreation. The court found that he did not plausibly allege a sufficiently serious constitutional harm, including because he did not allege that he was denied all recreation or faced a serious risk of injury. The related claim against the medical defendants concerning transfer to accessible housing failed for the same reasons.

The cracked-flooring claim was dismissed because the court viewed it as more like an ordinary state-law negligence or premises-safety claim than a deprivation of basic human necessities protected by the Constitution.

The strip-search claim was also dismissed. Hamilton did not challenge the search itself, but alleged that he had to stand on his injured leg because the search area lacked a bench or handrails. The court found that the alleged one-time shifting of weight, without allegations that the search was prolonged, repeated, or conducted for an improper purpose, did not plausibly show deliberate indifference or excessive force. The claim also failed because Hamilton did not allege that any named defendant was personally involved in the search.

As to medical care, the court found that Hamilton adequately alleged a sufficiently serious medical deprivation for purposes of the objective part of the test, but not the required culpable conduct. The court treated his allegations that Ulloa delayed an MRI and provided an ace bandage instead of a knee stabilizer as, at most, negligence or a disagreement about treatment. Hamilton’s speculation that cost concerns motivated the delay did not adequately allege deliberate indifference. The medical-care claims were therefore dismissed.

Americans with Disabilities Act claims

The court dismissed the ADA claims against the individual defendants because Title II of the ADA does not provide for individual liability. It also dismissed any claims against those defendants in their official capacities. Considering the claim against Westchester County, the court held that Hamilton did not plausibly allege that he had a disability covered by the ADA. He alleged that his knee injury required crutches for several weeks, but did not allege that the impairment was permanent, chronic, or had a longer-term impact. The court therefore dismissed the ADA claim.

Claims against Westchester County and Correct Care Solutions

The court explained that Westchester County and Correct Care Solutions could not be held liable merely because they employed or supervised people who allegedly caused harm. Because Hamilton had not plausibly alleged an underlying constitutional violation, the court found no basis for municipal or organizational liability. The court also noted that the complaint lacked non-conclusory allegations of a widespread policy or practice.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and Hamilton was granted leave to file an amended complaint consistent with the order by March 27, 2020. If he did not timely amend and could not show good cause, claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The court directed the clerk to terminate the two motions and mail Hamilton a copy of the opinion and order.