Williams v. Koenigsmann
- Nelson Roman
- 7:14-cv-02498
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Williams v. Koenigsmann, Judge Roman denied dismissal, dismissed Green Haven claims, and transferred remaining claims to Northern District of New York.
Wesley Williams’s claims against the Green Haven defendants were dismissed. The remaining claims against the other defendants, including KEPRO and other State Defendants, were transferred to the Northern District of New York for further adjudication.
What happened
In Williams v. Koenigsmann, Wesley Williams, who represented himself, alleged that state medical employees and KEPRO denied him surgery for painful breast-tissue enlargement while he was incarcerated at three New York facilities. He brought constitutional medical-care claims under a federal civil-rights law.
The court found Williams’s claims against the Green Haven defendants were filed on time, but dismissed those claims because the complaint did not plausibly show that those defendants knowingly or recklessly denied constitutionally adequate treatment. The court denied the defendants’ motion, however, and transferred the remaining claims to the Northern District of New York.
Judge Nelson S. Roman ruled that the Southern District was a proper venue but that transfer would better serve convenience and justice because Williams was housed in the Northern District and the remaining events occurred in other parts of New York.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Koenigsmann · No. 7:14-cv-02498
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 10, 2021
Background
Wesley Williams sued state employees and KEPRO, formerly APS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law that allows claims against people acting under state authority for violating constitutional rights. Williams alleged that, from January 2009 through December 2013, medical providers at Green Haven, Southport, and Clinton correctional facilities denied him a mastectomy for gynecomastia, or enlargement of male breast tissue, despite continuing pain and recommendations from endocrinologists. He alleged that the denials were based on a New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision policy treating mastectomies as cosmetic. He also alleged that his pain interfered with prayer and physical activity.
The State Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, arguing that Williams’s claims concerning the Green Haven defendants were untimely. They also challenged venue. The court considered the allegations in the amended complaint and materials permitted when a plaintiff is representing himself.
Statute of Limitations
The court held that Williams’s § 1983 claims were subject to a three-year limitations period. It determined that the claims accrued in September 2012, when Dr. Desimone allegedly told Williams that his surgery request had been denied. According to the court, this was the first alleged point at which Williams learned both that his condition required a particular treatment and that the treatment had been denied. Because Williams filed his original complaint in 2014, the court concluded that the claims were timely. The court therefore rejected the defendants’ timeliness argument.
Claims Against the Green Haven Defendants
Although the defendants had not moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court considered that issue on its own after giving Williams an opportunity to be heard. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that Williams had adequately alleged an objectively serious medical need. It nevertheless found the subjective element missing: Williams had not plausibly alleged that the Green Haven defendants knowingly or recklessly denied constitutionally adequate treatment.
The court emphasized that Williams alleged that he was evaluated at Green Haven, received a mammogram referral, saw an endocrinologist, and began hormone treatment. It also noted that Williams alleged he first learned in January 2012, after leaving Green Haven, that surgery was likely required. The court treated the earlier allegations as disagreements about medical judgment or treatment choices, which did not establish deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. The court therefore dismissed all claims against the Green Haven defendants. The conclusion directed that the Green Haven Regional Medical Director, Dr. Bernstein, and Nurse Practitioner Acrish be terminated as defendants.
Venue and Transfer
The court denied the defendants’ motion, including their venue challenge. It found that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue because the allegations had a sufficient connection to that district, and it also found that the Western and Northern Districts of New York were proper venues because significant events occurred there.
The court nevertheless ordered transfer to the Northern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court relied on the fact that the case could have been brought there, that Williams was then housed at Upstate Correctional Facility in that district, and that the remaining alleged acts or omissions occurred at Southport in the Western District and Clinton in the Northern District. The remaining claims were transferred for further adjudication; the opinion did not decide those claims on their merits.
Disposition
The court denied the defendants’ motion, sua sponte dismissed all claims against the Green Haven defendants, and ordered transfer of the matter to the Northern District of New York for adjudication of the remaining claims.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.