Herring v. Medical Staff Unit
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-10088
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Herring v. Medical Staff Unit, Judge Stanton dismissed claims against two jail entities, dismissed duplicate claims without prejudice, and allowed amendment.
Walter Herring may pursue the foot-condition and disclosure claims in the prior related proceeding and may amend the remaining medical claims within 60 days. Orange County Jail and the Medical Staff Unit were dismissed as defendants.
What happened
Walter Herring, a detained person proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Medical Staff Unit and Orange County Jail under a federal civil-rights law over medical care. He alleged that he was denied a proper wheelchair, a correctly fitted suction cup for his prosthetic leg, and treatment for back pain, and that his medical information was disclosed to other prisoners.
The court found that Herring repeated his foot-condition and medical-disclosure claims from a prior related proceeding, identified in the order as case number 20-CV-8765. It also held that Orange County Jail and the Medical Staff Unit could not be sued as separate entities under New York law. The court said Herring had not provided enough facts showing that staff knowingly or recklessly failed to address an excessive medical risk, or identifying which individuals were involved.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed all claims against Orange County Jail and the Medical Staff Unit for failure to state a claim. He dismissed the foot-condition and disclosure claims without prejudice to Herring pursuing them in the prior related proceeding, and granted Herring 60 days to file an amended complaint with more information about his medical claims and the individuals involved.
The detailed version
- Herring v. Medical Staff Unit · No. 1:20-cv-10088
- Louis Stanton
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
Walter Herring, who was a pretrial detainee at Orange County Jail, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants denied him a proper wheelchair, failed to provide the correct fitting for a suction cup for his prosthetic leg, and failed to treat his back pain and a foot condition. He also alleged that medical information was shared with other prisoners and that he was falsely said to have a sexually transmitted disease. He sought money damages.
Herring had filed a prior related proceeding, case number 20-CV-8765, involving allegations about treatment for his foot condition and the public discussion of his medical conditions.
Screening standard
Because Herring was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). 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 jurisdiction. It also said that it must read filings by people without lawyers liberally.
Duplicate claims
The court held that Herring’s foot-condition and disclosure claims appeared in both this case and the prior related proceeding. It dismissed those claims without prejudice to Herring litigating them in the prior related proceeding.
Claims against Orange County Jail and the Medical Staff Unit
The court dismissed all claims against Orange County Jail and the Medical Staff Unit for failure to state a claim. It relied on New York law providing that municipal agencies or departments that lack a separate legal identity generally cannot be sued as separate entities. The opinion did not identify the Medical Staff Unit or Orange County Jail as entities that could be sued independently.
Medical claims and personal involvement
The court treated the allegations about the wheelchair, prosthetic-leg suction cup, and back pain as claims under § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment, because Herring was a pretrial detainee. To state such a medical claim, Herring had to allege facts suggesting both that his medical conditions posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that correctional staff intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing, or having reason to know, of an excessive risk.
The court found that Herring did not allege enough facts showing that staff failed to take reasonable steps to address the risk or knew, or should have known, that the lack of treatment created an excessive risk to his health or safety. The court also said it was unclear whether the allegations described unconstitutional conduct or only a disagreement about treatment. In addition, Herring did not identify which people denied care or which person was responsible for each condition. The court explained that § 1983 requires personal involvement and does not impose liability merely because someone supervised an alleged wrongdoer.
Leave to amend and disposition
The court granted Herring leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. It would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. The court stated that if Herring did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.