Lopez v. N.Y.C. Department of Correction

Background

Anthony Lopez, an incarcerated person representing himself, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows people to seek damages for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights by state actors. Lopez alleged that he slipped and fell in the shower area of the Manhattan Detention Complex on December 28, 2018. He alleged that he lost consciousness, experienced pain in his head, neck, and back, and was not given the treatment he requested.

Lopez alleged that Captain Avin ordered him to stand, Physician’s Assistant Charles Appiah refused to provide several requested forms of treatment unless Lopez walked to the clinic, and Avin later said Lopez was faking and that she would ensure Deputy Warden Mitchell did not call emergency medical services. Lopez also alleged that he later received nonaspirin, walked to the clinic with an escort, and was denied medical treatment by the doctor on duty. He claimed continuing lumbar and cervical pain, radiculopathy, a laceration, and mental suffering.

The City of New York, Avin, and Mitchell moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a legal claim. The New York City Law Department did not represent Appiah but asked the court to dismiss the claims against him on its own initiative.

Claims and Analysis

The court construed the Second Amended Complaint as raising three types of claims: deliberate indifference to unsafe conditions, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services.

Conditions of confinement. The court held that any claim based on the slippery shower floor was barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine. That doctrine generally requires a court to follow an earlier ruling in the same case unless circumstances justify revisiting it. Chief Judge McMahon had previously dismissed this claim without allowing Lopez to amend it, so Judge Vyskocil declined to reconsider the claim.

Medical needs. Because Lopez was a pretrial detainee, the court evaluated his medical-care allegations under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court explained that Lopez needed to plausibly allege both a serious medical need and deliberate indifference to that need.

The court found that Lopez’s allegations of pain in his head, neck, and back did not sufficiently describe a serious medical condition requiring specific treatment. The court emphasized that he walked to his cell and later to the clinic within hours of the fall. It also noted that he received prompt attention, was given nonaspirin, and was escorted to the clinic.

The court further held that Lopez’s allegations against Appiah showed, at most, a disagreement about the appropriate treatment. Appiah concluded that Lopez could walk to the clinic and that additional emergency treatment was unnecessary because Appiah did not believe Lopez had a fracture. The court determined that this disagreement, including disputes about a neck brace, bandage, stretcher, pain medication, and X-ray, did not plausibly show deliberate indifference.

As to Avin and Mitchell, the court held that Lopez did not allege facts showing they had medical training or a reason to challenge Appiah’s medical judgment. The court concluded that, under the circumstances described, it was reasonable for them to rely on the medical personnel’s evaluation. The court also relied on the earlier ruling in the case in rejecting Lopez’s argument that Appiah’s remarks should have alerted Avin and Mitchell that the medical evaluation was inadequate.

Municipal liability. The court held that Lopez failed to state a claim against the City. A city cannot be held responsible under Section 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly acted improperly. Lopez instead had to plausibly allege that a City policy or custom caused a constitutional violation. The court found that no underlying constitutional violation had been adequately alleged and that Lopez’s assertions about inadequate drainage and policies permitting inadequate medical care were too conclusory. The court also noted that Lopez had not connected the alleged injury to a specific City policy, custom, training failure, or supervisory failure.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the motion to dismiss filed by the City of New York, Captain Avin, and Deputy Warden Mitchell. It DISMISSED the claims against Physician’s Assistant Charles Appiah on its own initiative. The court DENIED Lopez’s request to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith for purposes of the applicable statute, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case. The opinion does not state whether the dismissals were with or without prejudice.