Redd v. Garell

Background

Lorenzo Redd, proceeding without a lawyer, sued state prison officials and medical providers. The amended complaint alleged an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against all defendants, and a First Amendment retaliation claim against Sonji Henton and Westchester Medical Center.

Redd alleged that he underwent lower-lumbar surgery performed by Dr. P. Charles Garell at Westchester Medical Center in July 2017, continued to experience pain and mobility problems, and did not receive physical therapy until February 2018. He also alleged that he injured his lower back in July 2018, requested imaging and other treatment, and was examined by Dr. Ferdous before later receiving additional testing at Westchester Medical Center. Redd further alleged that a Westchester Medical Center appointment was rescheduled or canceled and that Henton transferred him from B-Block at Sing Sing Correctional Facility to Green Haven Correctional Facility in retaliation for filing this lawsuit.

The pending motion was filed only by the State Defendants—Dr. Razia K. Ferdous, Sonji Henton, Nurse Thomas Gudewicz, and Dr. Carl J. Koenigsmann. The Medical Defendants had answered the amended complaint and were not parties to the motion.

Legal standards

The court applied Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and read Redd’s filings liberally because he was representing himself, but it did not accept bare legal conclusions or invent facts that he had not alleged.

For the Eighth Amendment medical-care claim, Redd had to plausibly allege both that he was denied sufficiently serious medical care and that each official knew of and consciously disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. Negligence, medical malpractice, or a disagreement over treatment is not enough. Redd also had to allege each defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional violation to state a claim under Section 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used for claims against state officials.

For the First Amendment retaliation claim, Redd had to plausibly allege protected activity, an adverse action that could deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising constitutional rights, and a connection between the two. He also had to allege Henton’s personal involvement.

Medical-care claims against the State Defendants

The court dismissed the claim against Dr. Ferdous because Redd alleged that she ordered an X-ray and placed him in the infirmary for four or five days. The court concluded that her decision not to order an MRI or CAT scan, and not to expedite his neurosurgery appointment, at most suggested negligence or a disagreement about medical judgment, not deliberate indifference.

The court found that Redd adequately alleged the objective seriousness of the delay in receiving physical therapy after surgery, but dismissed the claim against Dr. Koenigsmann. Redd did not adequately allege that Koenigsmann knew about the serious medical need, consciously disregarded it, or chose to delay the therapy.

The court dismissed the claim against Nurse Gudewicz because, although she told Redd that he would have to wait several hours to see a doctor and attempted to give him a medical return pass, Redd was examined by Dr. Ferdous approximately ten minutes later. The court concluded that Gudewicz did not meaningfully deny or delay his medical care.

The court also dismissed the medical-care claim against Henton. Redd did not allege that Henton participated in deciding when or where he would be transferred, or that Henton knew about and disregarded a serious risk caused by any delay in transferring him to a facility without stairs.

Retaliation claim against Henton

The court dismissed Redd’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Henton. Filing a lawsuit is protected activity, but Redd did not adequately allege that his transfer from Sing Sing to Green Haven was an adverse action. His own allegations indicated that Green Haven was a flat facility and that Henton said the transfer addressed his medical needs and reduced the risk posed by stairs at Sing Sing.

The court also noted that, to the extent Redd challenged the time before the transfer occurred, he did not allege Henton’s personal involvement in that timing or delay. The retaliation claim concerning Westchester Medical Center was not decided because Westchester Medical Center had answered rather than moved to dismiss.

Disposition

The court granted the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss. It directed the clerk to terminate Dr. Ferdous, Henton, Gudewicz, and Koenigsmann as defendants and to terminate the motion. The court denied leave to amend, finding that the defects in the claims were substantive and that repleading would be futile. The claims against the Medical Defendants continued. The court did not address the State Defendants’ qualified-immunity arguments because it dismissed Redd’s claims on other grounds. It 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.