Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department

Background

Juan Pena, who was proceeding without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, sued Jane Doe, M.D., and Robert Morton, Jr., identified as the superintendent of Downstate Correctional Facility. The court treated the amended complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state officials for violations of federal rights. Pena sought $100,000 in damages.

The court had dismissed Pena’s original complaint in a March 25, 2020 order, including claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and Downstate’s medical department based on constitutional immunity. It also dismissed claims concerning disclosure of medical information, nonprivate medical examinations, refusal of medical screening, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act because the complaint did not state a claim and that statute does not provide a private right to sue. The court allowed Pena to amend.

Amended Complaint

Pena’s amended complaint repeated similar allegations with additional detail. He alleged that, during medical screening in a room with an open ceiling, his torn anterior cruciate ligament and torn meniscus were exposed to the examining physician. He said that disclosure could have caused discrimination and intolerance. He also alleged that he was not told he could refuse any part of the examination and that he would have refused an examination of his testicles by a female physician because of his religious beliefs.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the screening requirements for prisoner complaints filed without prepaying fees. It explained that a complaint must contain enough factual detail to make liability plausible, rather than merely reciting legal conclusions.

For the medical-confidentiality claim, the court stated that a prisoner has a limited constitutional right to keep medical information private when the condition is both serious and likely to expose the prisoner to discrimination or intolerance. The court held that Pena did not allege facts showing that his torn ACL or torn meniscus met that standard, or explaining how disclosure would have exposed him to discrimination or intolerance. The court therefore concluded that he failed to state a claim under § 1983, but granted leave to allege additional facts in a second amended complaint.

For the religious-exercise claim, the court recognized that a prisoner may be exempt from medical screening when it conflicts with religious beliefs. It held, however, that Pena did not identify the faith he followed or explain why the examination significantly interfered with his religious beliefs. He therefore failed to state a § 1983 claim based on the First Amendment’s protection of religious exercise. The court again granted leave to provide sufficient facts in a second amended complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It granted Pena leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. The court stated that, if he failed to comply or show cause, it would enter judgment dismissing the action for failure to state a claim.