Gunn v. Bentivegna

Background

Darrell Gunn brought this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows people to sue for certain constitutional-rights violations, and under state law. He sued Dr. Robert V. Bentivegna, Ms. Hennessy, Christine Raffaele, and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). He sued the individual defendants in both their official and individual capacities and sought damages and declaratory relief.

Gunn alleged that, while incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, he sought medical care from Raffaele on July 28, 2017. He said Raffaele treated him hostilely, gave him two non-aspirin tablets and water he considered unsafe, and did so in retaliation for seeking treatment, filing grievances, and filing lawsuits. He also alleged that officials denied him medical or mental-health treatment while he was on a hunger strike, that Hennessy laughed at him during a mental-health encounter, and that Bentivegna and Hennessy failed to properly treat the hunger strike under DOCCS Directive #4309.

Screening standard

Because Gunn was incarcerated and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Rulings

DOCCS and official-capacity claims. The court dismissed Gunn’s § 1983 claims against DOCCS because the agency is treated as an arm of New York State and is protected by state immunity from suit in federal court. The court also dismissed Gunn’s § 1983 claims for damages against the individual defendants in their official capacities.

Directive #4309. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims based only on the individual defendants’ alleged failure to follow DOCCS Directive #4309. It held that failing to follow a prison directive, by itself, does not violate the federal Constitution.

State-law damages claims. The court dismissed Gunn’s state-law claims for damages against DOCCS because those claims must be brought in the New York Court of Claims. It also dismissed the state-law damages claims against the individual DOCCS employees because the alleged conduct occurred within the scope of their employment, making those claims subject to the state-law provisions discussed by the court.

Medical and mental-health treatment. The court understood Gunn to be claiming that the individual defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical or mental-health needs. The court dismissed those claims because the complaint did not allege enough facts showing deliberate indifference. The court granted Gunn leave to replead those claims in an amended complaint within 30 days.

Retaliation. The court understood Gunn to be asserting a First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983 against Raffaele. The court dismissed that claim because Gunn did not allege enough facts connecting his protected conduct to Raffaele’s alleged actions or showing that the alleged actions were more than minor. The court granted leave to replead this claim within 30 days.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. It granted Gunn leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days concerning only the medical-or-mental-health-treatment claims and the retaliation claim. If he did not file an amended complaint within that period, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the action for the reasons in the order.