Harvard v. John or Jane Doe, M.D.

Background

Lowell Harvard filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by state actors. He alleged that, during medical intake examinations at Downstate Correctional Facility in 2015, 2016, and 2018, he had to remove all clothing except his boxers and socks while a curtain door was left open. He alleged that people passing by could see into the examination room and that prisoners in adjoining rooms could hear conversations about his medical history and private medical information. He also alleged that he was not told he could refuse the examinations. He sought $100,000 for each occurrence.

The caption names John or Jane Doe, M.D., and the Downstate superintendent as defendants. In its discussion, the court referred to two John Doe doctors. The court had previously allowed Harvard to proceed without paying the filing fee at the outset, but explained that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee over time.

Screening and Personal Involvement

Because Harvard was a prisoner suing government-related defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. It also explained that self-represented filings receive a liberal reading but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court stated that a § 1983 claim requires a violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority. It further held that Harvard had not alleged facts showing the defendants’ direct and personal involvement. A supervisor cannot be held liable merely because someone who violated a plaintiff’s rights worked for that supervisor. The court therefore granted Harvard leave to identify the individual defendants who were personally involved and to provide facts showing how they violated his rights.

Privacy and Medical Screening Allegations

The court said Harvard’s allegations about the examination conditions and disclosure of medical information implicated privacy protections under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. But it explained that constitutional protection for medical confidentiality generally applies to highly private and intimate medical conditions, such as conditions whose disclosure is likely to provoke hostility or intolerance. Harvard did not allege that he had such a condition or that such a condition was discussed during the examinations.

The court also stated that the Constitution does not guarantee that a prisoner’s medical examination will be conducted in private. It further explained that prisoners may be required to undergo medical screening when legitimate prison concerns require it, and that New York has a strong interest in screening incoming prisoners. Harvard identified no religious or other recognized reason for refusing screening, and the court found no authority requiring prison officials to tell prisoners that they could refuse it.

Statute of Limitations

The court applied New York’s three-year limitations period for § 1983 personal-injury claims. Such a claim generally begins when the plaintiff knows, or has reason to know, of the injury. Because Harvard gave the complaint to prison officials for mailing on November 14, 2020, the court said claims based on the 2015 and 2016 incidents appeared untimely.

The court did not dismiss those claims at that stage. Instead, it granted leave to amend so Harvard could plead facts supporting equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline when a plaintiff pursued rights diligently but an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. The court also noted that New York law provides certain statutory tolling circumstances.

Order

The court granted Harvard leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations, explain the claimed injuries, state the requested relief, and address why the claims are timely or should be tolled. No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that, absent good cause, failure to comply would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.