Jones v. Westchester County

Background

Daniel Jones filed an amended civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer. He alleged that, after falling on slippery stairs at Westchester County Jail on January 24, 2018, he received constitutionally inadequate medical care. He challenged the treatment provided by jail medical personnel and an emergency-room doctor, including the decision not to send him to an outside hospital immediately, the diagnosis of a sprained ankle, the use of Tylenol rather than stronger pain medication, and the failure to conduct additional testing for a possible torn Achilles tendon.

Jones also alleged that correctional officers required him to wear leg irons despite his injury, that officials denied related grievances, and that employees entered false or erroneous information in his medical records. After his transfer from Westchester County Jail to New York State custody, he alleged that unidentified correctional officers at Auburn Correctional Facility denied him physical therapy on several occasions in 2018 and 2019. He sought damages and an order requiring surgery to repair his leg.

Auburn physical-therapy claims

The court held that venue—the proper federal district for the claim—was not in the Southern District of New York for the Auburn allegations. Those events occurred in Cayuga County, which is in the Northern District of New York, and the unidentified defendants were alleged to reside outside the Southern District. The court also found that those claims were unrelated to the claims arising from the Westchester County Jail events. It severed the claims against the unidentified Auburn correctional officers and transferred them under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 to the Northern District of New York.

Injunctive relief

The court dismissed Jones’s claims for injunctive relief as moot. Jones was no longer in Westchester County custody, so the court concluded that his request for medical procedures against Westchester County Jail officials no longer presented a live dispute. The court noted that the order did not prevent Jones from pursuing claims concerning medical treatment while in New York State custody.

Medical-care claims

The court explained that a claim for constitutionally inadequate medical care requires allegations that the medical condition or deprivation posed a serious risk and that the defendant acted with the required level of deliberate indifference. Because Jones had received medical treatment, the court focused on whether the alleged delays or treatment decisions created a serious risk and whether the defendants acted improperly rather than merely negligently or disagreed with Jones about the appropriate treatment.

The court dismissed the damages claims against Dr. Raul Ulloa because Jones did not plausibly allege that Ulloa acted with deliberate indifference by first sending him to the jail clinic rather than an outside hospital or by failing to send him back for additional testing. The court treated those allegations as a disagreement about the proper treatment. It dismissed the claims against Dr. Jane Doe for the same reason, including Jones’s allegations that she should have performed additional tests and prescribed stronger pain medication. The court also dismissed the claims against Nurse Practitioner Lisa for the same reasons.

The court dismissed the damages claim against the unidentified orthopedist. The allegation that the orthopedist failed to place information in Jones’s medical records suggested, at most, negligence, and did not allege intentional or reckless conduct sufficient for a constitutional claim.

Leg irons and grievances

The court dismissed the damages claims against Correction Officer Ficarrotta and Sergeants Mabra and Meade. As to Ficarrotta and Mabra, Jones did not allege facts showing that they knew or should have known that using leg irons posed a serious risk of harm because his medical records did not prohibit their use at the relevant time. As to Meade, Jones acknowledged that the orthopedist’s alleged instruction not to use leg irons had never been entered into his medical file, so the complaint did not show that Meade knew or should have known of a serious risk.

The court dismissed the claim against Assistant Warden Vollmer concerning the grievance because Jones did not dispute that his medical records contained no restriction against leg restraints. The court therefore found that the grievance response did not state a damages claim under § 1983.

Medical-record conspiracy claim

The court dismissed the claims against Physician’s Assistant Stoddard and Captain Hermans concerning allegedly false medical-record entries. A civil-rights conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more actors to cause an unconstitutional injury. The court concluded that Jones’s allegations did not state such a claim because the alleged conspirators were employees of one entity acting within the scope of their employment, and Jones did not allege that they were pursuing interests wholly separate from that entity.

Disposition

The court declined to give Jones another opportunity to amend because he had already amended his complaint and the defects could not be cured by another amendment. It severed and transferred the Auburn physical-therapy claims, dismissed the remaining requests for injunctive relief as moot, and dismissed the damages claims against all remaining defendants for failure to state a claim. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Jones may have been asserting. Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered the dismissal on May 18, 2021.