Jimenez v. The City of New York

Background

Jose Jimenez, who was representing himself, sued the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged two constitutional claims: first, that the City was deliberately indifferent to dangerous conditions of confinement that exposed him to tuberculosis; and second, that the City was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs after he contracted tuberculosis. The City moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court reviewed that motion under the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Jimenez alleged that he was housed with detainees who had tested positive for tuberculosis, including detainees who refused treatment, and that he was moved with some of those detainees among different facilities. He also alleged poor ventilation, problems with showers and bathrooms, and sleeping arrangements requiring detainees to remain in close proximity. He alleged that at least one other detainee contracted tuberculosis. Jimenez’s medical records showed an initial negative chest x-ray, later positive tests for tuberculosis exposure, treatment beginning in August 2015, a temporary treatment interruption because of elevated liver-function results, and completion of treatment in August 2016.

Conditions-of-Confinement Claim

The court held that Jimenez’s allegations were sufficient at this stage to show an objectively serious risk of harm from being housed with detainees with active tuberculosis. Because the only defendant was the City, Jimenez also had to plausibly allege municipal liability: a City policy, official decision, widespread custom, or sufficiently serious failure to train or supervise that caused the constitutional violation.

The court found the failure-to-train theory insufficient because the complaint appeared to focus on medical staff without alleging that those staff members controlled housing assignments. The court nevertheless found the policy-or-custom theory adequately pleaded. The allegations of repeated housing of detainees with active tuberculosis alongside detainees who had not previously tested positive, together with allegations involving multiple detainees and repeated transfers, were sufficient to support the claim against the City at the pleading stage.

The court therefore denied the City’s motion as to the claim that the City violated Jimenez’s Fourteenth Amendment rights through a policy or custom of repeatedly housing him with detainees with active tuberculosis. The court also granted Jimenez leave to amend to add the individuals responsible for his housing assignments between December 2014 and July 2015. If he did not know their names, he could identify them as John and Jane Doe. The court stated that failure to amend or request more time by April 27, 2020, could lead it to deem the claim abandoned.

Medical-Care Claim

The court dismissed Jimenez’s deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claim. It relied on medical records that were treated as part of the complaint because Jimenez relied on them and the parties did not dispute their relevance. Those records showed that medical staff reviewed and communicated test results, informed Jimenez when he tested positive, began preventive treatment, monitored him, paused treatment when side effects appeared, changed the medication after his liver-function results returned to normal, and completed treatment successfully.

Based on those records, the court concluded that the complaint did not show that Jimenez was actually deprived of adequate medical care. The court’s conclusion concerned the adequacy of the medical treatment alleged in this case, not whether Jimenez faced a serious risk from the conditions in which he was housed.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the City’s motion. It granted the motion as to the deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claim and denied it as to the deliberate-indifference-to-conditions-of-confinement claim based on a City policy or custom. It granted Jimenez leave to file an amended complaint adding additional defendants and claims as described in the opinion. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion.