Jones v. Downstate Correctional Facility

Background

Paris Jones sued Physician Assistants Edward Quinones and Rhonda Kossef-Salchert under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal constitutional rights. Jones represented himself. He alleged that Quinones examined him on October 13, 2016, and Kossef-Salchert examined him on May 1, 2018, while he was incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility.

Jones alleged that both examinations occurred in a room without a curtain or door, where people walking by could see or hear the examination. He also alleged that he was questioned about his medical history without regard to who might overhear the conversation. He claimed that he was ordered to remove clothing, and that Kossef-Salchert ordered him to remove his underwear and touched and examined the area around his scrotum.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to support a legally valid claim. Jones did not oppose the motion.

Fourteenth Amendment privacy claim

The court explained that people have limited constitutional protection against unjustified government disclosure of private medical information, and that this protection is reduced but not eliminated for incarcerated people. Jones did not identify his medical conditions, allege that he disclosed stigmatizing information, or allege that anyone actually saw or heard him. He alleged only that people could have done so.

The court also found that Jones did not allege facts suggesting that the examinations lacked a legitimate prison-related purpose. The court agreed that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision has a legitimate prison-related interest in conducting physical examinations of people entering its custody. The court therefore dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claims without prejudice.

Eighth Amendment medical-care claim

For an Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberately inadequate medical care or conditions, a prisoner must allege a sufficiently serious deprivation and deliberate indifference by the defendant. The court found that Jones did not allege that the examination seriously injured him or caused a serious medical condition. His allegation that information might have been disclosed also failed because he did not allege that anyone actually saw or heard the examination. The court granted the motion to dismiss the deliberate-indifference claims.

Fourth Amendment search claim

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court stated that an incarcerated person generally must show an actual expectation of bodily privacy and that prison officials lacked sufficient justification for the intrusion. Jones did not have a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in the medical questioning, according to the court. Even assuming he had an expectation of privacy in the physical examinations, he did not allege facts showing that the examinations lacked sufficient justification. The court noted that medical examinations serve legitimate prison-related purposes, including assessment and treatment, and granted the motion to dismiss the Fourth Amendment claims.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Jones’s claims without prejudice and granted him leave to amend his complaint by April 30, 2021. The court stated that the complaint may be dismissed with prejudice and the action terminated if Jones did not amend or request an extension by that deadline. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail Jones a copy of the opinion.