Galvez v. Westchester County

Background

Kenlee Galvez, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, sued Westchester County; Correct Care Solutions, LLC; Wellpath Medical Services; Medical Director Dr. Raul Ulloa; and Dr. Alexis Gendell under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Galvez alleged that he had several psychiatric disorders, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, and anxiety, and that he had used medication and been hospitalized before his incarceration. He alleged that, while held as a pretrial detainee at the Westchester County Department of Correction, he received no psychiatric treatment despite repeated requests. He also alleged that Doctors Gendell and Ulloa acknowledged receiving his letters requesting treatment but did not respond. Galvez further alleged that a sergeant refused to accept a grievance about the denial of psychiatric care.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court declined to consider medical records submitted by the defendants because the complaint did not incorporate them or rely heavily on their contents.

Deliberate-Indifference Claim

For a pretrial detainee’s medical-care claim, the court explained that the complaint must plausibly allege both an objectively serious condition and that an official intentionally or recklessly failed to take reasonable measures to address a known or reasonably knowable risk.

The court held that Galvez did not plausibly allege that his psychiatric condition was objectively serious. Although he alleged that he requested mental-health treatment and received none, he did not allege how his conditions affected his daily activities, whether they caused chronic and substantial pain, or facts showing their severity while he was held at the facility. The court found that his statement that his conditions were deteriorating was conclusory. His allegations about earlier hospitalizations and medication were also insufficient, without more, to show that his condition at the facility was sufficiently serious. The court therefore dismissed the deliberate-indifference claim.

Grievance-Procedure Claim

The court ruled that prison grievance procedures are not constitutionally required. It therefore dismissed any claim based on the refusal to accept or the alleged inadequacy of Galvez’s grievance.

Claims Against the County and Medical Companies

To the extent Galvez alleged that Westchester County failed to oversee Correct Care Solutions and Wellpath, or that those companies had a pattern of denying adequate medical care, the court dismissed those claims. The court explained that Galvez had not adequately pleaded an underlying constitutional violation and that liability under § 1983 cannot rest solely on the employer’s responsibility for its employees, a theory known as respondeat superior.

State-Law Claims

After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning the court would not decide any state-law claims that could be read into the complaint.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court stated that a liberal reading of the complaint suggested Galvez might be able to state a valid Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim. Because he had not previously amended the complaint, the court granted him leave to file an amended complaint limited to those claims and directed him to provide facts about the events, each defendant’s actions or omissions, his health problems and injuries, the timing of events, and any county or company policy or custom that caused the alleged violation.

The court ordered that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. Galvez was directed to file the amended complaint or request additional time by July 27, 2020; otherwise, 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 appeal without prepaying fees.