Coke v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision…

Background

William James Coke, Sr., proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Carl J. Koenigsmann, Frederick Bernstein, Robert Bentivegna, Yelena Korobkova, Debra Geer, Shelley Mallozzi, Christine Raffaele, Jeff McKoy, and Quandera Quick. His Fourth Amended Complaint asserted seven categories of claims: deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment; conspiracy to tamper with medical records; procedural due process violations; First Amendment retaliation; denial of access to the courts; violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act; and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violations.

Coke’s allegations concerned medical treatment and prison conditions at Green Haven, Auburn, and Sing Sing correctional facilities. He alleged that prison medical providers failed to address pain and other medical problems, denied certain accommodations, failed to provide or administer recommended treatment, destroyed or failed to preserve medical evidence, and retaliated against him. He also alleged that other officials were responsible for his transfer, grievances, educational opportunities, or accommodations.

Rulings on the Claims

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and gave the self-represented plaintiff’s allegations a liberal reading, but explained that conclusory statements and unsupported legal conclusions were insufficient.

The court first held that claims based on events before October 22, 2016, were barred by the three-year limitations period applicable to § 1983 claims filed in New York. The court did not decide the defendants’ separate argument that some claims were barred by issue preclusion because the limitations ruling resolved those claims.

The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment medical-care claims against Bernstein, Korobkova, Bentivegna, and Raffaele because the allegations were vague, did not identify the defendants’ personal involvement in destroying medical evidence, and did not show either a sufficiently serious deprivation or the required state of mind. The court also noted that Coke’s allegations described frequent medical care at Green Haven and reflected disagreement with treatment decisions rather than deliberate indifference.

The court dismissed the medical-care claim against Geer because Coke did not allege sufficiently extreme pain or an objectively serious deprivation, and because the allegations showed that Geer treated him on multiple occasions. The court also concluded that recommending but not administering an epidural injection, denying passes, and leaving Coke housed on the fourth floor did not establish deliberate indifference on the allegations presented.

The court dismissed the medical-care claims against McKoy and Mallozzi because Coke did not adequately allege their personal involvement. The court stated that their positions of authority and receipt of grievances, without more, were insufficient. The allegations were also too vague and conclusory to satisfy the medical-care claim’s requirements.

The court dismissed the alleged conspiracy claim against Bernstein, Korobkova, Bentivegna, Raffaele, Geer, and Koenigsmann. Coke did not allege nonconclusory facts showing an agreement or specific acts supporting a conspiracy. The court also applied the rule that employees of the same organization acting within their employment generally cannot conspire with one another under the circumstances alleged.

The court dismissed the procedural due process claim against all defendants because Coke used the words “due process” but did not explain how his rights were violated. It dismissed the retaliation claim because Coke did not identify the protected activity, explain what medical evidence was destroyed, or allege facts showing a causal connection between protected activity and the defendants’ conduct.

The court dismissed the access-to-courts claim against Mallozzi because Coke did not allege deliberate and malicious conduct or an actual injury. The court also explained that violating prison grievance procedures or denying a grievance does not, by itself, establish denial of access to the courts. The claims against Quick were dismissed after Coke asked that Quick be dismissed from the action.

The court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims because Coke did not allege discrimination based on disability. The court also stated that being a convicted sex offender is not a disability under those statutes. Finally, the court dismissed the equal protection claim because Coke did not identify specific similarly situated people or groups who were treated differently and did not provide facts supporting a class-of-one claim.

Requests to Amend and Final Disposition

Coke asked to reinstate Parker and Ferdous, who had previously been dismissed for lack of personal involvement, and sought leave to amend. The court denied the motion for leave to amend with prejudice, finding that Coke had already had ample opportunities to amend and that another amendment would be futile because his new allegations remained conclusory.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint in its totality with prejudice. It denied Coke’s motion to reinstate Ferdous and Parker as defendants with prejudice. A discovery request concerning alleged destruction of medical records was denied as moot because the case was dismissed. The Clerk was directed to close the case. Judge Philip M. Halpern issued the Memorandum Opinion and Order on July 22, 2021.