Thomas v. John Doe

Background

William Thomas proceeded without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. In his amended complaint, he alleged that 15 employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and two employees of Westchester Medical Center violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility between July 5, 2018, and December 10, 2019.

Thomas alleged problems involving his kidney and urinary care, including the removal of a nephrostomy tube, the failure to provide reconstructive surgery, allegedly inadequate treatment, and discharge from Westchester Medical Center despite a urinary tract infection. He also alleged that Toll failed to provide meals, sprayed him with a fire extinguisher, and verbally abused him; that Edge grabbed and slapped him while Barrito was present; that officials discussed his criminal charge and mental state; that Medbury, Griffen, and Morales forced him to sign a residential treatment facility agreement; and that those three defendants conspired to keep him incarcerated.

Motions and jurisdiction

Lewit moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The State Defendants moved under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Thomas did not respond to the State Defendants’ motion. Although the opinion stated that Fullerton did not appear to have been served, the court separately considered the viability of the federal claims against him under the statute governing screening of claims filed without payment of fees.

The court first addressed the State Defendants’ argument under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. It held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Thomas’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State Defendants in their official capacities. The court stated that this ruling did not affect the claims against those defendants in their individual capacities, which it then considered under Rule 12(b)(6).

Personal involvement

The court held that Thomas did not adequately allege personal involvement by Bentivegna, Baldwin, Russo, Morley, Nayshuler, Quackenbush, or Blatney. As to Bentivegna, Baldwin, and Russo, the complaint alleged only that Thomas sent them grievances or complaints. As to Morley, Nayshuler, Quackenbush, and Blatney, the complaint alleged only that they investigated unspecified complaints and concluded that Thomas was receiving adequate medical care. The court held that these allegations were insufficient and dismissed the claims against those defendants for lack of personal involvement.

Eighth Amendment claims

The court dismissed Thomas’s claims that Lewit, Fullerton, Edge, and Barrito were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. The court assumed for purposes of its analysis that Thomas’s condition could be serious, but held that the complaint did not plausibly allege a delay or interruption in medical care because Thomas alleged that he received treatment. The court characterized the allegations primarily as a disagreement with the treatment he preferred. It also held that the allegations did not plausibly show that the defendants acted with the required state of mind. In particular, the court treated Thomas’s allegations against Lewit and Fullerton as claims of misdiagnosis, and found insufficient allegations that Barrito and Edge knew of and recklessly disregarded a serious medical risk.

The court also dismissed the excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims. It held that the allegations that Edge grabbed Thomas’s shirt, slapped him, and verbally abused him described only a minimal use of force and did not allege Edge’s mental state or the reason for the interaction. Because the court found no underlying excessive-force violation by Edge, it found no failure-to-intervene claim against Barrito. The court dismissed the claim that Toll used a fire extinguisher because the allegations were too conclusory and lacked sufficient detail.

The court dismissed the conditions-of-confinement claim based on Toll’s alleged failure to provide meals. Thomas alleged that Toll failed to provide unspecified meals on numerous occasions over approximately two months, but the court held that he did not provide enough facts about the missed meals or their effect on his health to state a plausible constitutional claim.

Fourteenth Amendment claims

The court dismissed Thomas’s substantive due process claims based on discussions of his criminal charge and mental state. It held that criminal-charge information was publicly accessible and therefore did not create a protected confidentiality interest. Regarding the alleged discussion of Thomas’s mental state, the court found that Thomas did not identify what confidential information was discussed, who overheard it, or where the discussion occurred. The court also stated that the fact that Thomas was on suicide watch suggested that discussing his mental state could have been related to a legitimate safety purpose.

The court dismissed Thomas’s procedural due process claim concerning the residential treatment facility agreement. It held that Thomas provided no factual basis showing that he had a protected entitlement to release from incarceration. It further held that his statement that Medbury, Griffen, and Morales “forced” him to sign the agreement did not explain how he was forced or what process was denied.

Conspiracy claim

The court dismissed the conspiracy claim against Medbury, Griffen, and Morales. Thomas did not allege nonconclusory facts showing an agreement or meeting of the minds. The court also held that the claim was barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine because the three defendants worked for the same entity, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, and were alleged to have acted within the scope of their employment.

Request to amend and disposition

Thomas asked in his opposition to Lewit’s motion for permission to file a second amended complaint, but he did not provide a proposed complaint or explain how he would correct the defects. The court noted that Judge Stanton had previously allowed Thomas to amend after identifying deficiencies, and that the amended complaint repeated many of those problems. Judge Halpern denied the request to file a second amended complaint.

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed Fullerton under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Thomas permission to appeal without paying fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the case.