Girard v. Collao
- Nelson Roman
- 7:18-cv-02026
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 16
In Girard v. Collao, Judge Roman granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied adding parties, and allowed one final amended complaint.
Chauncey Girard and the medical professionals and prison personnel he sued; the order also concerns the twelve additional people Girard sought to add.
What happened
In Girard v. Collao, Chauncey Girard, who was representing himself, sued medical professionals and prison personnel under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged inadequate medical care, retaliation, mishandling of grievances, denial of court access, and false imprisonment while at Green Haven Correctional Facility.
The court said Girard’s new complaint repeated allegations that had already been found insufficient. The added documents did not show that any defendant deliberately ignored serious medical needs or establish a connection between his grievances and the alleged retaliation and confinement. The court also found that the proposed new allegations involving additional people were unrelated to the original claims.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Girard’s motion to supplement the complaint and add a party. The court gave Girard one more opportunity to file a fourth amended complaint by April 11, 2022; if he did not do so without good cause, the third amended complaint would be dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Girard v. Collao · No. 7:18-cv-02026
- Nelson Roman
- Feb. 9, 2022
Background
Chauncey Girard, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two medical professionals and six prison personnel. His third amended complaint alleged deliberate indifference to medical needs, retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights, mishandling of inmate grievances, denial of access to the courts, and false imprisonment. The alleged events occurred at Green Haven Correctional Facility from approximately December 14, 2017, through January 13, 2018, although some attached records concerned earlier or later events.
Girard alleged that prison medical staff failed to provide adequate treatment or permits for his shoulder, stomach, back, and other conditions. He also alleged that prison personnel falsely confined him after a cell search, denied him medical attention, retaliated against him, mishandled his complaints, and interfered with certified mail. He attached medical records, grievances, and a cell-search and contraband receipt. He separately sought permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) to add twelve defendants based on alleged physical and sexual assault and due-process violations during a disciplinary hearing.
Motion to Dismiss
The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint contains enough factual allegations to plausibly support legal relief. The court had previously ruled that Girard’s allegations did not state plausible claims, and it found that the third amended complaint repeated those allegations.
The court concluded that the additional documents did not fix the identified problems. The records from before Girard’s transfer to Green Haven did not show misconduct by the defendants. A memorandum from Dr. Bentivegna showed that Girard received shoulder treatment but did not show that Bentivegna knew of mistreatment. The grievance materials did not identify who received the grievance, whether it was investigated, or what happened after review. Medical records concerning blood in Girard’s urine and coughing blood showed that he received treatment after an altercation but did not show deliberate indifference by a defendant. The court also found that the cell-search receipt did not establish a connection between Girard’s grievances and the alleged retaliatory conduct or show that he was confined without a legitimate reason.
The court noted that the newly alleged failure to provide a back brace did not identify the responsible defendant and appeared to concern a disagreement over treatment. It also stated that giving the wrong medication on one occasion appeared to be negligence rather than the serious disregard required for deliberate indifference.
Leave to Amend
Although the court had already allowed Girard more than one opportunity to amend, it granted him one additional opportunity to file a fourth amended complaint. The court stated that the fourth amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the prior complaints, so all claims, facts, and attachments Girard wanted the court to consider had to be included in or attached to that filing. The deadline was 60 days, or April 11, 2022. The court warned that failing to file the fourth amended complaint on time, without good cause, would result in dismissal of the third amended complaint with prejudice.
Motion to Supplement and Add Parties
The court denied Girard’s motion to supplement the complaint and add a party. It relied on its earlier determination that the proposed allegations involving the additional people had no sufficient connection to the claims in the third amended complaint.
Disposition
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. He denied Girard’s motion to supplement the complaint and add a party. The order did not immediately state that the third amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice; instead, it allowed Girard to file a fourth amended complaint and made dismissal with prejudice conditional on his failure to do so within the allowed time and without good cause.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.