Devane v. Doe

Background

Donnie Devane, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against an unidentified Downstate Correctional Facility employee and the facility’s superintendent. He alleged that, during a May 2015 medical examination, he was required to undress while a curtain remained open, that others could observe him or overhear his medical history, and that he was not given an opportunity to refuse the examination. He invoked the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments.

The court screened the prisoner complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Screening requires the court to dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court construed the allegations as asserting three Fourteenth Amendment privacy theories—bodily privacy, confidentiality of medical information, and the right to refuse the examination—and two Eighth Amendment theories involving inadequate medical care and failure to protect him from harm related to disclosure of his medical history.

Court’s Analysis

For the bodily-privacy claim, the court explained that incarcerated people have a limited constitutional right to bodily privacy, but the alleged conduct must be extremely egregious and shocking to the conscience. The court held that Devane’s allegation that others may have briefly viewed him while he was naked was insufficient by itself to state such a claim.

For the confidentiality claim, the court recognized that the Constitution can protect against unwanted disclosure of certain highly private medical information. It held, however, that Devane did not allege that defendants publicly revealed his medical information or that the information involved the type of condition receiving constitutional confidentiality protection. The allegation that his answers may have been overheard was speculative and insufficient.

For the refusal claim, the court explained that prison officials may require medical screening when legitimate prison interests support it. Devane did not identify a religious or other recognized reason for refusing the screening. His allegation that he would have refused if he had known he could do so did not state a constitutional claim.

The court also rejected the Eighth Amendment medical-care claim because Devane did not allege a medical condition posing an unreasonable risk of serious harm, or facts showing deliberate indifference to such a condition. The failure-to-protect claim also failed because he alleged no facts showing that defendants disclosed medical information that could place him in danger.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. It granted Devane leave to file an amended complaint by June 1, 2021, and stated that the action could be dismissed with prejudice if he did not amend or request an extension by that deadline. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

The order does not decide whether the claims were time-barred; it expressly states that the court did not address that issue because it dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim.