Fredricks v. Ho

Background

Nigel Fredricks, who was incarcerated at the time of the order and represented himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating constitutional rights. He sued “Doctor Mrs. Ho, Mental Health” and “Therapist Erica S., Mental Health,” alleging that they violated his Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights through inadequate mental-health care.

Fredricks alleged that he received mental-health treatment from Therapist Erica S. at Mount Sinai Hospital after his release from prison in November 2018. He said they discussed his trauma, medications, diagnosis, and mental-health needs. He was later diagnosed with major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder and took Prozac. After his arrest and detention on Rikers Island on August 1, 2019, he obtained medical records that included diagnoses of cannabis abuse disorder and unspecified trauma. He disputed the cannabis diagnosis and said he had not discussed his trauma with mental-health staff at Rikers Island. He assumed Dr. Ho was responsible because she gave him the records and had signed the copy.

Screening standard

Because Fredricks was a prisoner proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally but must still provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims against Therapist Erica S.

The court dismissed Fredricks’s claims against Therapist Erica S. for failure to state a claim. A § 1983 claim requires facts showing that the defendant acted under color of state law—that is, using authority connected to state or governmental action. The court found that Erica S. was alleged to be a private party and that Fredricks had not alleged facts suggesting that her conduct was fairly attributable to the state.

Claims against Doctor Mrs. Ho

The court also found that Fredricks failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Dr. Ho based on inadequate mental-health care. For a pretrial detainee’s medical-care claim, the complaint must allege both that the medical condition created an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the official intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing, or having reason to know, of an excessive risk.

The court concluded that Fredricks had not alleged facts showing that Dr. Ho denied him constitutionally adequate mental-health care, that the disputed medical-record entries created a substantial risk of serious harm, or that Dr. Ho was deliberately indifferent to such a risk. The court stated that a disagreement about treatment or negligence alone is not enough for a § 1983 constitutional claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed Fredricks’s claims against Erica S. and Dr. Ho under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because it was not clear that amendment would be futile, Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Fredricks leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to replace the original complaint and provide facts identifying what each defendant did, when and where the events occurred, the injuries allegedly suffered, and the relief requested.

The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. It warned that if Fredricks did not timely amend and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed in its entirety 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.