Morehouse v. Vasques

Background

Scott Morehouse, who was incarcerated and represented himself, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. He alleged that Martin Vasquez, Jeffrey Greiner, Erik Munro, and Robert Reid violated his constitutional and statutory rights at Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center. Morehouse claimed that Greiner, Munro, and Vasquez assaulted him in an elevator while he was restrained on a stretcher, that Reid watched without intervening, and that Reid failed to provide or obtain medical care.

The moving defendants—Greiner, Munro, and Reid—submitted declarations, medical records, incident reports, and other evidence stating that no assault occurred during the elevator transfer. Their evidence described Morehouse as combative before and after the transfer and documented examinations that noted limited or no visible injuries. Morehouse did not respond to the defendants’ statement of undisputed facts or summary-judgment motion, but the court independently reviewed the record and considered his complaint and deposition testimony.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute exists about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. At this stage, the court generally may not weigh evidence or decide which witness is credible. A pro se party’s sworn testimony can create a factual dispute if it presents a plausible account, even when other evidence contradicts it.

Excessive force and failure to intervene

The court held that a genuine factual dispute existed about whether Greiner and Munro assaulted Morehouse in the elevator and whether Reid failed to intervene. Morehouse gave a detailed account of the alleged assault and consistently identified the participants in his complaint and deposition. The court acknowledged inconsistencies, a lack of corroboration, and medical records that did not document all of the injuries Morehouse described. But it concluded that his account was not so internally contradictory or implausible that the court could reject it as a matter of law.

The court therefore denied the motion for summary judgment on the excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims against Greiner, Munro, and Reid. It explained that resolving the conflicting accounts would require credibility determinations for a factfinder rather than the court at summary judgment.

Inadequate medical treatment

The court granted summary judgment to Reid on the inadequate-medical-treatment claim. It stated that the law was unclear about whether the governing test should be the constitutional standard for deliberate indifference or the standard requiring a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment for treatment decisions involving committed psychiatric patients. The court found it unnecessary to choose between those standards because Morehouse could not prevail under either one.

Under the substantial-departure standard, Morehouse did not provide evidence that the treatment he received after the alleged elevator incident substantially departed from accepted professional standards. The record showed that medical personnel observed or examined him shortly after he arrived on the receiving ward, and that he later received additional examinations. Under the deliberate-indifference standard, the court also found that the alleged bruises, black eye, bloody nose, pain, swelling, and temporary ankle pain were not sufficiently serious to support the claim. The court concluded that no constitutional violation resulted from Reid’s alleged failure to provide care on the elevator.

Other defendants and allegations

Vasquez did not join the motion and had not filed a motion of his own. The court therefore did not address Morehouse’s allegations against Vasquez, including a separate alleged assault on a later date, in this opinion.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the moving defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Morehouse’s inadequate-medical-treatment claim against Reid. The court denied the motion with respect to Morehouse’s excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims against Greiner, Munro, and Reid, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion. The opinion states that the court would hold a status conference.