Michel v. Orange County, N.Y.

Background

Garry Michel, who was incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility and was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, filed an amended complaint seeking money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He alleged that during his detention at the Orange County Jail he was repeatedly exposed to secondhand smoke from tobacco and K2, a synthetic drug. He claimed that the smoke caused burning lungs, headaches, tremors, anxiety, and other serious symptoms.

Michel alleged that jail officials failed to prevent tobacco and drugs from entering the jail, failed to move him to better-ventilated areas, and failed to stop detainees from smoking. He also alleged that mailroom officers did not adequately screen incoming mail, that grievance officials and supervisors failed to address the problem, and that medical providers did not give him prompt or adequate treatment or information about the effects of long-term K2 exposure. The complaint named Orange County, the Orange County Jail Corrections Division, Wellpath Medical Services, several officials, medical personnel, mailroom personnel, and unidentified defendants.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the amended complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint if it is frivolous, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court concluded that the amended complaint did not cure the problems identified in its November 24, 2021 order.

The court found that Michel named several officials because their names appeared on grievance documents or because they were supervisors, but he did not allege facts showing their personal involvement. He also did not identify what the relevant policies were, what each person’s responsibilities were, what each person knew, or what additional steps each person could have taken.

The court concluded that the allegations did not support a claim against Orange County because Michel did not plausibly connect the alleged constitutional violation to a County policy or customary practice. It also held that the Orange County Jail Corrections Division was not a suable entity under § 1983.

As to Wellpath, Dr. George, and other medical personnel, the court found that the allegations showed, at most, a disagreement about treatment. The court stated that possible medical malpractice is not enough to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Similarly, the allegation that a mail screener failed to detect K2 suggested negligence, but did not establish deliberate indifference. The court also found that the amended allegations did not plausibly show that jail officials were deliberately indifferent to the risks from K2 and other prohibited substances, noting that officials had taken steps to reduce K2 use and that Michel had received medical visits and treatment.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. The court declined to give Michel another opportunity to amend because he had already been warned about the deficiencies and had failed to correct them. The Clerk was directed to close the case.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Michel permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.