Whitley v. Bowden

Background

Vidal Maurice Whitley, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Nurse Adrian Bowden, Lt. Orazio Bucolo, and Robert Bentivegna, M.D. He alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. Specifically, he alleged that, on August 4 and 5, 2016, the defendants ignored his ingestion of 50 unidentified pills, including pills he swallowed in front of Bowden and Bucolo.

The opinion states that all other defendants had been dismissed from the action.

Motion

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial when the moving party contends that the record shows no genuine dispute requiring trial. They argued that they were not deliberately indifferent and that Whitley had failed to exhaust the prison grievance process required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Whitley did not file an opposition. The court had extended his deadline four times and treated the motion as fully submitted using only the defendants’ filings.

Reasons for the ruling

The court did not reach the defendants’ arguments about deliberate indifference or exhaustion. Instead, it identified several problems with the motion’s presentation:

- The defendants submitted only cover pages for 11 of their 15 exhibits. An earlier order had allowed them to file two particular documents under seal, but it had not authorized wholesale sealing of the other exhibits. The defendants had not made the required application for sealing those additional documents. - It was unclear whether Whitley had received complete copies of the defendants’ sealed submissions. Whitley had complained that he had not received the motion, and the court had directed the Clerk to mail him copies. - The defendants did not comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(3), which requires motions to include supporting affidavits and exhibits containing the factual information and record materials needed to decide the motion. The defendants attached their exhibits to the notice of motion rather than submitting them through an affidavit or declaration. The court stated that this failure could justify disregarding the facts the defendants submitted.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice to refiling a motion that complied with the applicable rules. The court directed that any renewed motion be filed and served by October 30, 2020; Whitley’s opposition, if any, by November 30, 2020; and the defendants’ reply, if any, by December 11, 2020. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and mail Whitley a copy of the order.

The order therefore resolved the pending motion but did not decide whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent or whether Whitley exhausted his administrative remedies.