McLean v. Morton

Background

Marquin McLean, who was incarcerated, filed this action without a lawyer against Robert Morton Jr., identified as the superintendent of Downstate Correctional Facility, and “John Doe, M.D.” He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and claimed that the defendants violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He sought money damages.

McLean alleged that, when he entered the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision in 2013, 2015, and 2020, he underwent health assessments and physical examinations at Downstate. He said he was directed to a curtained examination cubicle, told to remove his clothing down to his boxer shorts and socks, and not given a gown or drape even though people could see into the room. He also alleged that conversations about his medical history could be heard from nearby areas. The doctor examined him and checked his abdomen and hernia area. McLean claimed that these conditions violated his privacy and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. He also claimed that he was not told he could refuse all or part of the examination.

Screening and personal involvement

Because McLean was a prisoner seeking relief against government-related defendants and had permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Screening requires dismissal of 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. The court also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but still must provide enough facts to make a claim legally plausible.

The court treated McLean’s allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits suits for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. A § 1983 damages claim requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement. A supervisor cannot be held liable merely because an employee allegedly violated someone’s rights. The court concluded that McLean’s complaint did not explain how Superintendent Morton or the John Doe doctor personally participated in the alleged violations. It therefore gave McLean permission to amend to identify the personally involved individuals and allege facts showing what each person did.

Constitutional claims

The court explained that the Fourteenth Amendment can, in certain circumstances, protect against unwanted disclosure of medical information, but that protection is limited. It generally concerns highly private and intimate medical conditions. McLean did not allege that he had such a condition; he alleged only that he discussed his medical history and records with a doctor in circumstances where others might hear.

The court also stated that the Constitution does not require every prisoner medical examination to occur in complete privacy. On the allegations presented, the examination conditions did not establish a constitutional privacy violation.

Regarding refusal of medical screening, the court explained that prisoners may be required to undergo screening when legitimate prison interests justify it. New York has a strong interest in screening incoming prisoners, and the court cited authority allowing mandatory medical screening. Although some cases recognize exceptions based on religious beliefs, McLean did not give a religious or other reason why he would have refused screening. The court found no authority requiring prison officials to inform prisoners that they may refuse a medical screening and concluded that this theory did not state a recognizable constitutional claim.

Statute of limitations

The court stated that § 1983 claims in New York generally have a three-year statute of limitations, meaning a three-year deadline for filing. Claims generally accrue when the person knows or has reason to know of the injury. McLean delivered his complaint to prison officials for mailing on November 17, 2020. The court noted that the claims arising from the 2013 and 2015 examinations occurred more than three years earlier and therefore might be untimely.

The court did not finally dismiss those claims on that ground at this stage. Instead, it gave McLean an opportunity to plead facts supporting equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline when a person pursued rights diligently but an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. The court stated that any amended complaint would need to explain why the 2013 and 2015 claims should not be dismissed as untimely.

Disposition

The court granted McLean leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to replace the original complaint, identify the relevant defendants, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, state when and where the events occurred, describe his injuries, and specify the relief sought. The court directed that no summons would issue at that time and warned that failure to amend within the allowed period, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.