Blount v. Rastani

Background

Sayvion D. Blount, who was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The court had already allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The case was transferred from the Northern District of New York after that court separated claims allegedly arising in the Southern District of New York.

According to the allegations summarized in the opinion, Blount was transferred to Downstate Correctional Facility on August 20, 2020. Medical staff allegedly prescribed medication for a seizure condition that he did not have, which allegedly made him ineligible for enrollment at the Willard drug-treatment program. Blount said he told Senior Offender Rehabilitation Counselor Cheverez and M. Badami, identified as a medical staff member at Downstate, about the mistake and asked them to intervene, stop the medication, and correct the error. He alleged that neither defendant helped him and that he refused the medication on several occasions before his transfer to Midstate Correctional Facility on August 31, 2020.

Medical-care claim

For an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim, a prisoner must allege both an objectively serious medical condition and that officials acted with deliberate indifference—meaning a culpable state of mind comparable to criminal recklessness.

The court held that Blount’s allegations did not presently support an inference that he was denied medical care in a way that created an unreasonable risk of serious harm. The opinion noted that it was unclear whether he ever took the medication and that he did not describe any health effects from the alleged misdiagnosis. The court therefore granted him leave to provide additional facts supporting the medical-care claim.

Willard-program due-process claim

A procedural due-process claim requires a protected liberty or property interest and a showing of what process was due before that interest was taken away. The court explained that prisoners generally do not have a constitutional right to participate in drug-treatment or other rehabilitation programs that might shorten their sentences or speed their release.

The court held that Blount’s allegations were insufficient to suggest that he had a protected liberty interest in participating in the Willard drug-treatment program. It therefore dismissed any claim based on his ineligibility for that program for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Leave to amend and order

Because additional facts might allow Blount to state a valid medical-care claim, the court granted him 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include the facts and claims he wanted the court to consider. The court directed him to identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought.

The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Blount did not timely comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.