Gunn v. Betivegna

Background

Darrell Gunn, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Dr. Robert Bentivegna violated his constitutional rights while Gunn was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The court had dismissed Gunn’s original complaint and allowed him to file an amended complaint addressing its deficiencies.

Gunn’s amended complaint alleged that he had been treated in a hospital emergency room for severe weight loss, muscle loss, malnutrition, dehydration, depression, anxiety, high blood pressure, nausea, and dizziness. He alleged that Dr. Bentivegna, the Green Haven health service director, discontinued Gunn’s prescription for Ensure nutritional drinks, causing further deterioration. Gunn sought a declaration and money damages.

Court’s Analysis

The court screened the amended complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to dismiss prisoner complaints that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally valid claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

To state a § 1983 claim for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment, Gunn had to allege both an objectively serious medical condition and that Dr. Bentivegna acted with deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference requires facts showing that the medical professional knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded it; negligence or a disagreement over treatment is not enough.

The court concluded that the amended complaint had the same deficiencies as the original complaint. Although Gunn alleged that Dr. Bentivegna stopped prescribing Ensure, he did not provide facts supporting the conclusion that Dr. Bentivegna acted with the required level of disregard for Gunn’s health. The court stated that the allegations instead suggested a disagreement about whether Ensure was the proper treatment for Gunn’s symptoms.

State-Law Claims and Further Amendment

After dismissing the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Gunn might be asserting.

The court also declined to give Gunn another opportunity to amend. It explained that he had already been allowed to amend and that the defects in the amended complaint could not be cured by another amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed Gunn’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims and declined to grant further leave to amend.