Feliz v. Westchester Department of Corrections

Background

Hiram Alberto Feliz, who was detained in the Westchester County Jail, brought this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought money damages. In his original complaint, he alleged that he tripped on a crack in the cement while playing basketball, injured his hand, was denied adequate and timely medical treatment, and was incorrectly told that he would be released on probation.

The court previously directed Feliz to amend because the Westchester County Department of Corrections was not a proper defendant, the complaint did not allege the personal involvement of individual defendants, and the facts did not show deliberate indifference to his health or safety. Feliz filed an amended complaint naming Corrections Officer Jane Doe, C.O. Fumes, C.O. Clark, and Anthony Mettissi. The caption also listed Westchester County and Westchester Medical Center.

Claims and Analysis

Feliz alleged that he tripped on the crack, was taken to Westchester County Medical Center, and was mistakenly told by a doctor that his hand was not broken. He said an orthopedist diagnosed a fracture or break two weeks later and that surgery took months because of COVID-19. He did not identify any individual defendant as personally involved in delaying or denying medical care.

The court held that the allegations against Fumes and Clark—that they failed to fix the crack or place a warning sign—suggested negligence under state law, not deliberate indifference to a serious risk required for a § 1983 claim. The court said the medical-care allegations could arguably support a § 1983 claim, but Feliz had not named a defendant personally involved in the alleged delay or denial of care.

Feliz also alleged that Jane Doe and Mettissi gave him false information that he would be released. He said the mistake caused distress and led other detainees to call him a snitch and threaten or target him. The court held that these allegations did not support an inference that either defendant violated his constitutional rights. The court further stated that even if Mettissi had been a court-appointed lawyer, he would not be a state actor for purposes of § 1983 liability.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint because it still failed to comply with federal pleading rules. Because it was not clear that another amendment would necessarily be futile, the court granted Feliz leave to file a second amended complaint. The court instructed him to provide facts suggesting that he was denied adequate or timely medical care and to identify individual defendants personally involved in those events.

Feliz was required to file the second amended complaint with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, label it “Second Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 20-CV-6392 (LLS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Feliz failed to comply and could not show good cause, it would enter judgment and close the matter.