Valencia v. Westchester County

Background

Frank E. Valencia, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, sued Westchester County; Correct Care Solutions, LLC; Dr. Raul Ulloa; Dr. Alexis Gendell; Dr. Joon Park; Commissioner Joseph K. Spano; and Deputy Commissioner Leandro Diaz under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was based on events following a September 25, 2017 shootout in which Valencia was wounded. He alleged that, after treatment at Westchester Medical Center, he was held before trial at the Westchester County Jail, initially in its infirmary.

Valencia alleged that he received wound care, physical therapy, and a walker, but not additional after-care assistance. He also alleged that a physical therapist inappropriately struck his buttocks, that he complained to Dr. Ulloa, and that he was later moved to a psychiatric housing unit. He claimed the new unit lacked shower rails and benches, required him to travel more than 200 feet for wound cleaning, was unsanitary, and exposed his wounds to infection. He alleged that he developed an infection and suffered pain, headaches, and a large scar. He also alleged that he could not attend outdoor recreation or school and that a staff sergeant refused to accept his grievance.

The complaint, read liberally, asserted Fourteenth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and denial of due process; a First Amendment retaliation claim; claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and claims against the County and Correct Care Solutions under the municipal-liability principles recognized in Monell v. Department of Social Services. The defendants filed unopposed motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint plausibly states a legal claim.

Court’s Analysis

Medical-care claim. The court dismissed the deliberate-indifference claims against Drs. Ulloa, Gendell, and Park. It found that Valencia’s own allegations showed he received regular wound care, physical therapy, a walker, and continued wound cleaning after his transfer. The complaint did not adequately identify additional medical care that was necessary but withheld, or facts showing that the doctors intentionally or recklessly exposed him to a serious risk of harm.

The court also dismissed the deliberate-indifference claim against Commissioner Spano and Deputy Commissioner Diaz. Valencia did not plausibly allege that they were responsible for his transfer, denied him adequate medical care, or consciously or recklessly disregarded a significant risk. The court further found that he had not adequately alleged their personal involvement in a constitutional violation.

Disability claims. The court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims. Without deciding whether Valencia’s gunshot wounds and related injuries qualified as a disability, the court found that he did not plausibly allege that the lack of rails, benches, or dressing assistance denied him access to jail services, programs, or activities. He also did not allege that he was denied recreation or school because of disability-related discriminatory intent or hostility.

Retaliation claim. The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim against the Correct Care Solutions defendants. The court assumed that filing a prison complaint was protected activity and that a transfer from the infirmary might deter an ordinary prisoner from complaining. But Valencia did not plausibly allege that Drs. Ulloa or Gendell had authority over housing assignments, made the transfer decision, or caused the transfer. He also alleged that the infirmary lacked beds for new arrivals, which undermined his claim that his complaint was a substantial reason for the transfer.

Due process and grievance claims. The court dismissed the due process claim concerning the transfer because Valencia had no protected liberty interest in his housing assignment. It also held that violations of prison grievance procedures do not themselves create a claim under § 1983.

Claims against the County and Correct Care Solutions. The court dismissed the Monell claim against Correct Care Solutions because the complaint contained no allegations against the company and did not adequately allege an underlying constitutional violation by its employees. The court also dismissed the claims against Westchester County because Valencia offered only conclusory assertions about inadequate training, supervision, bed shortages, retaliation, and disregard for inmate health and safety. He did not plausibly allege a county policy or custom that caused a constitutional injury. Any official-capacity claims against Spano and Diaz were duplicative of the claims against the County.

State-law claims. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims that could be read from the complaint.

Disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court granted Valencia leave to file an amended complaint, but only to replead the First Amendment retaliation claim and only against prison staff personally involved in his transfer from the infirmary to the 1-K housing unit. The court ordered that any amended complaint be filed by April 13, 2020. If Valencia did not file an amended complaint or request more time by that date, the court stated it would deem the case abandoned, enter judgment for the defendants, and close the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for any appeal.