Barnes v. Uzu
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-05885
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Barnes v. Uzu, Judge Stanton granted leave to amend a prisoner’s medical-care complaint after identifying possible timeliness and pleading problems.
Sergio Barnes, the incarcerated plaintiff, was given an opportunity to amend his claims against Dr. Uzu, Dr. Ahmad Akhan, Robert Bentivegna, A. McCarthy, and Leslie Carey. The order required him to address the apparent filing deadline problem and explain each defendant’s personal involvement.
What happened
In Barnes v. Uzu, Sergio Barnes, who was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, alleged that medical staff delayed treatment for his injured Achilles tendon. He brought a civil-rights claim under federal law and sought money damages.
The court found that the claim appeared to have been filed after New York’s three-year deadline, but it gave Barnes an opportunity to allege facts supporting a legally recognized extension of that deadline. The court also found that the allegations could suggest serious medical need and more than negligence as to Dr. Uzu, but did not explain how each other defendant was personally involved.
Judge Louis L. Stanton granted Barnes 60 days to file an amended complaint addressing timeliness and each defendant’s alleged conduct. The court stated that the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim if Barnes did not comply without showing good cause.
The detailed version
- Barnes v. Uzu · No. 7:20-cv-05885
- Kenneth Karas
- Oct. 14, 2020
Background
Sergio Barnes, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical condition while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The complaint sought money damages. The court had previously allowed Barnes to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
Barnes alleged that he injured his right Achilles tendon while playing football on September 10, 2016. He was taken to the facility clinic and admitted to the infirmary. Two days later, Dr. Uzu examined the swollen tendon. Barnes reported instability and suggested an magnetic resonance imaging scan, but Dr. Uzu requested an x-ray instead and said crutches were unnecessary. Barnes alleged that he continued to experience pain and difficulty walking. An x-ray on September 18 was negative. After additional complaints, medical staff scheduled an magnetic resonance imaging scan on October 6, and the scan conducted on November 14 showed a tear that had nearly completely ruptured the Achilles tendon.
Timeliness
The court explained that claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 generally use New York’s three-year limitations period for personal-injury claims. Barnes delivered his complaint to prison officials for mailing on June 12, 2020, nearly three years and seven months after the latest event alleged in the complaint. The court stated that dismissal based on a limitations defense can be appropriate when the problem is clear from the complaint, but that a plaintiff must generally receive notice and an opportunity to respond before the court dismisses on that ground.
The court therefore gave Barnes permission to amend the complaint to allege facts showing that equitable tolling may apply. Equitable tolling is a possible extension of a filing deadline when a plaintiff pursued rights diligently and an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. The court did not decide that equitable tolling applied.
Medical-care allegations
The court treated Barnes’s delayed-treatment allegations as an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim under § 1983. Such a claim requires facts showing both an objectively serious medical condition and that the defendant knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. Negligent medical care or a disagreement over treatment is not enough.
The court found that Barnes alleged enough to suggest that the Achilles injury was a serious medical condition. It also stated that the alleged denial of repeated requests for an magnetic resonance imaging scan over two months, while Barnes was in constant pain, might suggest more than negligence. But the court found that Barnes identified only Dr. Uzu in the factual allegations. It found no facts showing that Dr. Ahmad Akhan, Robert Bentivegna, A. McCarthy, or Leslie Carey knew or should have known about Barnes’s medical need or were deliberately indifferent to it.
Disposition and amendment requirements
The court granted Barnes leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to include facts supporting timeliness or equitable tolling and facts showing how each defendant was deliberately indifferent to Barnes’s serious medical condition. It also had to provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts, identify each defendant’s conduct, include relevant dates and locations, describe the alleged rights violations and injuries, state the requested relief, and provide addresses for named defendants.
The court stated that the amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. It directed Barnes to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and use docket number 20-CV-5885 (LLS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Barnes failed to comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The order itself granted leave to amend; it did not dismiss the complaint.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.