Blanch v. Schiff

Background

Isaiah Blanch brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials, maintenance staff, grievance officials, and medical personnel connected to Sullivan County Jail. He alleged constitutional violations arising from his confinement in a modular unit from September 2017 until his transfer in March 2018. The opinion states that Blanch was detained following a parole violation and that he proceeded without a lawyer.

Blanch alleged that the unit had inadequate ventilation, mold, and rusty or foul-smelling water. He claimed these conditions caused or contributed to headaches, chest and eye pain, breathing and sleeping difficulties, coughing up blood, skin rashes, and boils. He also alleged inadequate medical screening and treatment, delayed access to glasses, insufficient responses to his medical complaints, and a delay in receiving hypertension and diabetes medication and a blood-pressure check on January 1, 2018. He further alleged that some defendants knew about the conditions through inspections, medical rounds, grievances, or prior notice, but failed to correct them.

Claims and Legal Standards

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a plausible claim. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motions and considered materials submitted by Blanch in opposition because he was representing himself.

The court applied the Fourteenth Amendment’s deliberate-indifference standard because it treated Blanch as detained for a parole violation. Under that standard, a plaintiff must allege both a sufficiently serious deprivation and that the defendant intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing, or having reason to know, of an excessive risk to health or safety.

For the conditions claims, the court assumed, without deciding, that one or more alleged problems with ventilation, mold, or water could satisfy the objective seriousness requirement. It nevertheless held that Blanch had not adequately alleged that any defendant acted intentionally or recklessly. Allegations that defendants held supervisory positions, were named in an earlier lawsuit, saw or smelled conditions while performing their duties, or responded to grievances did not sufficiently show personal and deliberate indifference. The court therefore dismissed the conditions-of-confinement claims.

For the medical claims, the court held that Blanch had not plausibly alleged an objectively serious deprivation. It concluded that the allegations about skin rashes and boils did not show a sufficiently serious medical need; that treatment with ibuprofen for headaches, eye pain, chest complaints, and respiratory complaints did not establish a constitutional violation; and that Blanch did not allege serious harm or a serious risk of harm from the approximately four-hour delay in receiving medication on January 1, 2018. The court also held that alleged failures to perform additional screening or testing, delays in obtaining glasses, and the fact that Dr. Good did not personally examine Blanch did not state constitutional claims. The court dismissed all deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claims.

The court also rejected claims based on the grievance process because incarcerated people do not have a constitutional right to a prison grievance procedure or to have grievances investigated. It rejected official-capacity and conspiracy theories because Blanch had not alleged an underlying constitutional violation.

Relief and State-Law Claims

The court held that Blanch’s request for injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the former unit and its conditions was not supported by allegations of a real and immediate threat of future injury, because he no longer lived in that unit or facility. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority over related state-law claims, after dismissing the federal claims. It dismissed any state-law claims that could be read into the complaint without prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed Blanch’s claims without prejudice. The court gave Blanch until April 30, 2021, to file a Fourth Amended Complaint consistent with the opinion. The order stated that if he did not file it by that date and could not show good cause for the failure, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice and the case would be closed.