Labossiere v. Montefiore Hospital

Background

Wilfred Labossiere, who was incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility and proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs after surgery during events at Montefiore Hospital, St. Luke’s Hospital, and Downstate between June 29 and July 19, 2019. He named Montefiore Hospital, St. Luke’s Hospital, Downstate Correctional Facility, two unidentified officers, two unidentified nurses, and two unidentified doctors. He sought $10 million in damages.

Labossiere alleged that he was discharged from a hospital without proper observation, later needed emergency treatment and bladder catheterization, and experienced additional catheter-related pain and bleeding. He also alleged that medical staff lacked appropriate gloves, that he was discharged from Downstate medical care without a doctor’s consent, and that he was exposed while receiving treatment. The attached grievance referred to nurse “Tom,” officer “McMann,” officer Cook, physician’s assistant Miss Yemi, and Dr. Roth, but the court said it was unclear whether these individuals were the unidentified defendants Labossiere intended to sue.

Screening standard

Because Labossiere was incarcerated and had permission to proceed without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint is read liberally but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court construed the allegations as asserting a § 1983 claim for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment. Such a claim requires facts showing a serious medical need and that the defendant knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. It also requires facts showing that each defendant personally participated in the alleged constitutional violation; a person cannot be held liable merely because that person supervised someone else.

Rulings

The court dismissed Labossiere’s claims against Downstate Correctional Facility. It held that Downstate is not a “person” that may be sued under § 1983.

The court found that the complaint did not describe the personal involvement of each Doe doctor, nurse, and officer. It directed Labossiere to identify the individuals if possible, or provide descriptions and information such as dates, times, locations, and each person’s actions if their identities remained unknown.

The court granted Labossiere leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must repeat any facts or claims he wants the court to consider. The court stated that if he did not comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not resolve the merits of whether any defendant was deliberately indifferent to Labossiere’s medical needs.