Fate v. Julienno

Background

Forest L. Fate, Sr., proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued Jouliana Petranker, a medical administrator at the Rockland County Correctional Facility; Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco III; Rockland County Commissioner Ed Day; and Correct Care Solutions, LLC (CCS). The court read Fate’s amended complaint as asserting four claims: (1) municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and (4) medical malpractice under New York law.

Fate alleged that his hearing aids and glasses were misplaced when he was arrested and that he told jail medical staff about his hearing problems after arriving at the jail. He alleged that Nurse Petranker told him he could not receive hearing aids at the jail because it did not have a contract with a hearing specialist in the area. Fate further alleged that he missed meals, was placed on “keep lock,” and could not participate in programs because of his hearing impairment. After a doctor recommended a hearing aid for his right ear, Fate alleged that Nurse Petranker refused to obtain one or provide reasonable accommodations. He also alleged that he complained to Sheriff Falco and Commissioner Day, but they did not investigate or respond.

Motions and standards

CCS moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The Individual Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The court applied essentially the same standard to both motions and accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true, while requiring enough facts to make each claim plausible. Because Fate was proceeding without a lawyer, the court read his pleadings liberally.

Claims against CCS

The court dismissed the municipal-liability claim against CCS. A municipal-liability claim requires an official policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional violation. Fate mentioned CCS only in the caption and briefly stated in his opposition papers that he learned the jail nurses allegedly worked for CCS. The court found those allegations insufficient to identify a CCS policy or custom.

The court also dismissed the constitutional medical-care claim against CCS because Fate did not allege facts showing CCS’s personal involvement in the alleged deprivation. The court explained that § 1983 liability cannot be based solely on an employer’s responsibility for its workers.

The court dismissed the ADA claim against CCS. Although the court treated Fate as a qualified individual with a disability and recognized his allegations that he missed meals and jail programs, it found that he did not allege that CCS caused his exclusion or that the exclusion was because of his disability. The court also found that Fate did not state a New York medical-malpractice claim against CCS because he did not identify the applicable standard of care or facts showing that CCS breached it.

Claims against the Individual Defendants

The court dismissed the municipal-liability claims against the Individual Defendants because that type of claim applies to a municipality, not individuals. It also dismissed the official-capacity municipal-liability claims because Fate did not identify a municipal policy, practice, or custom that caused the alleged violations.

The court dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment medical-care claims against the Individual Defendants in their official capacities because the Eleventh Amendment protects government officials from suits for money damages in their official capacities. It dismissed the same claims against Sheriff Falco and Commissioner Day in their individual capacities because Fate did not adequately allege their personal involvement. According to the court, Fate’s allegations focused on Nurse Petranker, and his allegations that Falco and Day knew about problems at the jail or failed to respond did not show that they personally participated in the denial of hearing aids.

The court dismissed the ADA claims against the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities because Title II of the ADA does not permit individual-capacity suits against state officials. The court did not resolve whether official-capacity ADA claims were otherwise permitted, because Fate had not adequately stated those claims. It found that Fate did not allege that the alleged mistreatment was motivated by discriminatory hostility or ill will because of his disability. The court also dismissed the official-capacity ADA claims against Falco and Day because Fate did not allege that they were involved in his treatment.

Finally, the court dismissed the medical-malpractice claims against the Individual Defendants. Fate’s allegations against Falco and Day were unrelated to the medical treatment he received, and he did not identify a standard of care allegedly breached by Nurse Petranker.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice. The only remaining claim was Fate’s Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Nurse Petranker. The court directed Nurse Petranker to answer within 30 days. Fate was permitted to file a second amended complaint addressing the identified pleading deficiencies within 30 days. If he did not do so, the case would proceed on the deliberate-indifference claim against Nurse Petranker. The court also found that Fate’s request for an injunction was moot because he had been transferred from the facility.