Harvard v. John or Jane Doe, M.D.

Background

Lowell Harvard, who was incarcerated at Bare Hill Correctional Facility when the complaint was filed, proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He sued a John or Jane Doe doctor and the superintendent of Downstate Correctional Facility under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights.

Harvard alleged that he went to Downstate in 2015, 2016, and December 2018 for reception into the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. During medical assessments, he was instructed to remove all clothing except his boxers and socks. He alleged that the curtain door to the examination room was left open, so people passing by could see into the room while he was undressed and being examined. He also alleged that prisoners in adjoining rooms could hear his discussions with the doctor about his medical history and protected medical information.

The examinations included checks of his eyes, ears, throat, heart, lungs, chest, abdomen, and testicles. Harvard alleged that he was never told he could refuse the physical examinations. He contrasted these examinations with examinations outside prison, where he said he was in a private room and given a gown. He sought $100,000 in damages for each occurrence.

Earlier Order and Amended Complaint

The court previously directed Harvard to amend his original complaint to address identified deficiencies. That order explained that a prisoner’s right to medical confidentiality is limited and that courts in the federal appeals circuit covering New York have recognized constitutional privacy protection for only a narrow group of highly private and intimate conditions. The court also noted that a prisoner may request an exemption from medical screenings when the screenings conflict with religious beliefs, and that claims arising in 2015 and 2016 appeared untimely.

Harvard’s amended complaint relied on the Prison Rape Elimination Act, asserting that a prisoner should not be required to remove clothing unless a physician determines that doing so is medically necessary. The court stated that the Act does not create a private right of action, meaning that it does not authorize an individual lawsuit to enforce the statute. A footnote also stated that Harvard did not allege that he was required to remove clothing without a medically necessary reason or for another unlawful purpose.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the amended complaint was substantially similar to the original complaint. Harvard again alleged that he was examined without privacy and without being told that he could refuse, but he did not provide additional facts showing a viable or timely claim under Section 1983. The court therefore concluded that the allegations failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and that some claims were untimely.

The court explained that a plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer is generally given an opportunity to amend a defective complaint. It may deny another opportunity, however, when the plaintiff has already amended but has not corrected the defects. The court found that further amendment could not cure the defects in Harvard’s complaint.

Disposition

The action was dismissed. The court declined to grant Harvard another opportunity to amend. It directed the clerk to mail him a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The opinion states that the amended complaint, filed without payment of the filing fee, was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which permits dismissal when such a complaint fails to state a claim.