Fredricks v. NINAMARIE FOLLACARO

Background

Nigel Naguan Fredericks, who was incarcerated at the Manhattan Detention Complex, filed this self-represented action under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. He alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Fredericks alleged that he entered the custody of the New York City Department of Correction on August 2, 2019. He said that, despite making multiple requests to see a dentist, he did not see one until January 5, 2021. He alleged that he had a hole in his wisdom tooth, but also said that it did not currently cause pain. He further alleged that he had not received a checkup or bloodwork during his time in Department of Correction custody and was having difficulty obtaining the treatment he requested. He sought money damages and said that he needed discovery to identify the proper defendants.

Legal Standard

The court explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires screening of complaints filed by incarcerated people seeking relief from governmental entities or their officers or employees. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings are read generously, but they still must provide enough factual detail to state a plausible claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under that statute, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and action by a person acting under state law.

Medical-Care Claim

The court explained that the legal basis for an incarcerated person’s medical-care claim depends on whether the person was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. The opinion did not determine which status applied to Fredericks. In either event, the plaintiff must show that the medical condition was sufficiently serious and that the official had the required mental state. For a convicted prisoner, that generally requires knowledge of and disregard for an excessive health or safety risk. For a pretrial detainee, the plaintiff must allege intentional conduct or reckless failure to take reasonable care despite knowledge, or what the official should have known, about an excessive risk.

The court held that Fredericks had not alleged enough facts to suggest deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. It relied on his statement that the hole in his tooth was not painful and his failure to allege other facts showing a serious condition, significant injury, or unnecessary pain. The court also held that the lack of a physical examination or bloodwork, without allegations of a serious condition requiring that care, did not support an inference that officials denied constitutionally adequate medical care. The court stated that disagreement with the course of treatment is not enough to establish a constitutional violation.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Because Fredericks was proceeding without a lawyer and the court could not conclude that amendment would necessarily be futile, it granted him leave to replead his claim. The court required the amended complaint to identify the individuals allegedly involved, describe each person’s conduct or omissions, provide relevant dates and locations, explain how the conduct violated his rights, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. The court permitted him to use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for defendants whose names he did not know, while noting that the use of those labels would not extend the three-year limitations period.

The court directed Fredericks to submit an amended complaint to the Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, using the case number and labeling it an amended complaint. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if he 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 therefore granted leave to amend rather than entering an immediate dismissal of the action.