Price v. Koenigsmann
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:19-cv-04068-KMK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 18
In Price v. Koenigsmann, Judge Karas granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Price’s claims with prejudice.
Tyrone Price’s claims against Dr. Carl Koenigsmann, Dr. Robert Bentivegna, and Thomas Griffin were dismissed with prejudice; the case was closed.
What happened
In Price v. Koenigsmann, Tyrone Price, representing himself, alleged that three Green Haven Correctional Facility employees failed to properly treat his dislocated finger, causing lasting loss of movement. He brought constitutional claims about medical care and equal treatment, along with state medical-malpractice and negligence claims and a possible claim about access to a law library.
The court ruled that Price did not plausibly explain how any named Defendant personally participated in the alleged violations. It also found that the finger injury was not sufficiently serious for a constitutional medical-care claim, that the records showed Price received extensive treatment, and that his allegations described at most negligence or delay. The equal-treatment, state-law, and law-library claims also failed for the reasons explained in the opinion.
Judge Karas granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the claims with prejudice because further amendment would be futile, directed the Clerk to close the case, and declined to decide qualified immunity.
The detailed version
- Price v. Koenigsmann · No. 7:19-cv-04068-KMK
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 13, 2022
Background
Tyrone Price, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Dr. Carl Koenigsmann, Dr. Robert Bentivegna, and Thomas Griffin under 42 U.S.C. §
- He alleged that, while incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, he injured his ring finger playing basketball in November
- Price sought medical attention beginning in December
- An x-ray in January 2017 showed a dislocation and soft-tissue swelling, and he was later referred to an orthopedic surgeon. Surgery occurred at an outside hospital on May 10, 2017, followed by specialist appointments, x-rays, and two courses of physical therapy.
Price alleged that the delay in surgery caused permanent loss of finger mobility and affected his future earning ability. His amended complaint asserted deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, state-law medical malpractice and negligence, and, as the court construed it, denial of access to a law library. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege that any Defendant was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. The complaint did not name the Defendants outside the caption and referred to them only through vague and conclusory statements. Section 1983 does not impose liability merely because a person supervises others; the plaintiff must connect each defendant’s own actions to the alleged constitutional violation.
The court also held that the medical-care claim failed for two independent reasons. First, the alleged dislocated finger did not meet the required level of seriousness for an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim. Second, the records attached to Price’s complaint showed repeated medical visits, at least two x-rays, surgery, specialist follow-up appointments, and physical therapy. The court found no allegation that any Defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. It characterized Price’s allegations as, at most, allegations of negligent or delayed treatment, which were insufficient for this constitutional claim.
The equal-protection claim also failed because Price did not allege that he was intentionally treated differently from similarly situated people. The court stated that incarcerated people are not a protected class and found that the alleged delay could be related to legitimate resource, space, and security concerns. The court further held that New York Correction Law § 24 barred Price’s state-law claims against the Defendants because they were Department of Corrections and Community Supervision employees acting within the scope of their duties. Any law-library claim failed because Price alleged problems at Rikers Island, while the Defendants were employees at Green Haven, and he did not allege that they affected his access to the Rikers Island library.
Disposition
The court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. It dismissed the claims with prejudice because this was the second adjudication of the claims and the court found that further amendment would be futile. The court declined to address Defendants’ qualified-immunity argument, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, and ordered the case closed. Judge Kenneth M. Karas signed the Opinion & Order on January 13, 2022.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.