Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department

Background

Juan Pena brought this case without a lawyer while incarcerated at Bare Hill Correctional Facility. He sued the Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). The court treated his complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute, and under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). He sought $100,000 in damages.

Pena alleged that, during medical assessments at Downstate Correctional Facility between April and June 2019, conversations could be heard by an inmate in a nearby room. He also alleged that blood and urine samples were taken, his vital signs were measured in an open room where other inmates and staff could see him, and X-ray examinations occurred with the door open. He further alleged that the door remained open while he changed into a gown and during a physical examination in which parts of his body were exposed and a physician examined his testicles. He claimed violations of privacy, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and HIPAA. He also alleged that officials did not tell him he could refuse the examinations.

Screening standard

Because Pena was a prisoner proceeding without prepaying filing fees, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a legally viable claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers generously, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.

Eleventh Amendment immunity

The court held that DOCCS and the Downstate Medical Department are arms of New York State. The constitutional doctrine known as Eleventh Amendment immunity generally prevents states, their agencies, and their instrumentalities from being sued in federal court for money damages unless the state has waived immunity or Congress has removed it. The court found that Congress had not removed New York’s immunity for § 1983 claims and that New York had not waived its immunity. It therefore dismissed Pena’s § 1983 claims against DOCCS and the Downstate Medical Department under Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Medical-information confidentiality

The court recognized that prisoners have a limited constitutional right to keep medical information confidential. Under the standard applied by the court, that protection applies when the information concerns a serious medical condition that could expose a person to discrimination or intolerance. Pena did not identify the medical information he discussed or allege facts showing that it concerned such a condition. The court therefore dismissed his § 1983 confidentiality claims for failure to state a claim.

Privacy during medical examinations

The court held that the Constitution does not guarantee that a prisoner’s medical examination will be conducted entirely in private. It therefore dismissed Pena’s § 1983 claims based on the alleged lack of privacy during examinations, including the open doors, the presence or visibility of others, and the exposure he described. The court also rejected the related cruel-and-unusual-punishment theory because the alleged lack of privacy did not establish a constitutional violation under the authorities it applied.

Required medical screening

The court explained that prison officials may conduct mandatory medical screening of incoming prisoners, in part because correctional officials have an obligation to protect prisoners from infectious disease. Some courts have recognized possible exemptions when screening conflicts with religious beliefs. Pena alleged that he preferred private doctors and would have refused the examination of his testicles because he considered it invasive. The court found that personal discomfort with the examination was not a recognized reason to refuse medical screening, and Pena identified no religious or other basis for refusing it. The court dismissed his § 1983 claims arising from the medical examinations for failure to state a claim.

HIPAA

The court held that HIPAA does not provide a private right of action, meaning that an individual cannot use HIPAA itself to bring this type of lawsuit. It therefore dismissed any HIPAA claims for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and for seeking monetary relief from defendants immune from that relief. It granted Pena leave to file an amended complaint stating a plausible claim within 30 days of the order. The court stated that if he did not file an amended complaint within that period, it would enter judgment dismissing the action on those grounds. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.