Massey v. Bolanos

Background

Tyrone H. Massey, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York, Captain Susanna Bolanos, and Deputy Warden Aisha Shannon under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs while he was a pretrial detainee at the New York City Department of Correction’s Manhattan Detention Center.

Massey alleged that he experienced multiple seizures around September 29, 2020. He claimed that Bolanos knew he had suffered a seizure and needed medical attention but did not escort him to a clinic. He also alleged that he cut his leg, experienced another seizure, told officers that he needed medical care, and suffered head and neck pain. The original complaint stated that he received pain medication and an ice pack. Massey also alleged that Bolanos knew subordinates and Shannon were not making overnight observation tours.

The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). After that motion and more than 21 days after the defendants answered, Massey filed a proposed amended complaint. The court treated that filing as a motion for permission to amend.

Court’s reasoning

The court dismissed the complaint for two independent reasons.

First, the complaint did not state a constitutional claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Because Massey was a pretrial detainee, the court applied the Fourteenth Amendment standard for unconstitutional conditions of confinement. That standard requires facts showing both a sufficiently serious deprivation and deliberate indifference by the official.

The court found that the complaint did not satisfy the seriousness requirement. It did not say how long Massey’s treatment was delayed or when he received care. It also did not allege facts showing that the delay caused extreme pain, worsened a serious illness, or required faster or more extensive treatment. The allegations that Massey received pain medication and an ice pack did not supply those missing facts.

The claim against Shannon also failed because the complaint did not allege that she personally violated the Constitution. The court explained that a supervisor is not liable merely because of a supervisory role; liability requires the supervisor’s own individual actions to have violated the Constitution. The City claim failed because a municipality cannot be liable under § 1983 without an underlying constitutional violation, even though municipal liability also requires an official policy or custom that caused the constitutional injury.

Second, the complaint did not allege exhaustion of administrative remedies required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The complaint expressly stated that Massey had filed no grievance. Although a grievance process may be considered unavailable when prison officials thwart its use through intimidation or similar conduct, the court found Massey’s allegations too general. He did not identify what retaliatory acts occurred, when they occurred, or how they were connected to attempts to use the grievance process.

Because no federal claim remained, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Massey may have asserted. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims, but the court may decline that authority after dismissing all claims within its original federal jurisdiction.

Proposed amended complaint

The court denied Massey’s motion for leave to amend as futile. The proposed amended complaint changed the account of what happened on September 29, 2020, including alleging that Bolanos personally spoke with Massey and refused to take him to the clinic. It also removed the allegations about the care he received. Even with those changes, the proposed complaint still did not say how long treatment was delayed or how the delay caused additional pain or injury.

The proposed amended complaint also did not overcome the exhaustion problem. It relied on grievances from 2021 that had been returned as non-grievable, but the court found that those later grievances did not support an inference about what Massey plausibly believed in September 2020. The court noted that the materials stated that grievances concerning medical access and sick call were subject to the grievance process.

Finally, the court found that the proposed amended complaint directly contradicted the original complaint on facts within Massey’s knowledge. The original complaint said Massey told two officers that he needed medical attention and that they informed Bolanos; the proposed complaint said Massey told Bolanos directly and she refused to take him to the clinic. The pleadings also gave conflicting explanations for why no grievance was filed.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Massey’s motion for leave to amend and granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Clerk was directed to mail Massey a copy of the opinion and close the motion.