Houston v. Capra

Background

Tyrone Houston, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought a civil-rights lawsuit under Section 1983 based on events at Fishkill Correctional Facility and Sing Sing Correctional Facility. He alleged that prison officials denied or delayed medical treatment, exposed incarcerated people to unsafe COVID-19 conditions, used excessive force, interfered with his access to courts and mail, imposed keeplock without adequate process, harassed him, retaliated against him, and failed to protect him from violence. Houston also moved for a preliminary injunction seeking release from Fishkill, expedited medical care, and protection from two corrections officers.

Motion to dismiss

The court applied the standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which asks whether the complaint alleges enough specific facts to make a legal claim plausible. The court was required to read Houston’s filings liberally because he was representing himself, but it could not supply facts that he had not alleged.

Claims allowed to proceed

The court held that the following claims were adequately pleaded and could continue:

- Houston’s deliberate-indifference claims concerning his glaucoma treatment against P.A. Ngbodi, Pharmacy Supervisor Pralatowski, Nurse Administrator Vasquez, and Deputy Superintendent Henton. The court found that the alleged withholding or failure to refill prescribed eyedrops, despite the risk of blindness and alleged irreversible damage to Houston’s left eye, plausibly showed a serious medical need and deliberate indifference. - Houston’s conditions-of-confinement claims against Nurse Administrator Becker, Deputy Superintendent Akinyombo, Deputy Superintendent Frost, and Superintendent Burnett concerning the S200 policy. Houston plausibly alleged that inmates exposed to COVID-19 were double-bunked with inmates who had confirmed cases, creating a serious health risk, and that these defendants developed or enacted the policy. - Houston’s excessive-force claims against Lt. Perkins, Sgt. Campbell, C.O. Flores, and Sgt. Dyson based on allegations that they made him carry four bags of legal papers weighing a total of 200 pounds over substantial distances, even though he needed a cane. - Houston’s excessive-force claim against C.O. Kinney based on the allegation that Kinney deliberately coughed into his unmasked face during the COVID-19 pandemic. - Houston’s access-to-courts claim against Officer Dinkins. Houston plausibly alleged that Dinkins’s restrictions on his law-library access caused him to miss a deadline in his direct appeal of his criminal conviction.

Claims dismissed

The court dismissed Houston’s other medical-care claims. It found that the allegations concerning high blood pressure and high cholesterol did not explain the harm caused by the alleged loss of medication or low-sodium meals. The allegations concerning his testicle injury, gout and arthritis, and the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine did not plausibly show that defendants acted with deliberate indifference rather than exercising medical judgment. His allegations concerning heart disease, obesity, kidney disease, asthma, diabetes, and lung tumors lacked enough detail about the conditions, treatment, or resulting harm.

The court dismissed the COVID-19 conditions claims other than those based on the S200 policy. Houston’s allegations about cleaning, social distancing, isolation, masking, testing, grievance handling, and the vaccine lacked sufficient factual detail or did not show the required deliberate indifference. The court also dismissed any conspiracy claims as conclusory.

The court dismissed Houston’s failure-to-protect claims. His allegation that he was moved to a section known as the “rapist side” did not explain why the move created a particular or heightened risk, and rumors that two officers were trying to arrange an attack did not establish an objectively serious safety risk. The court also dismissed the due-process claim concerning fifteen days of keeplock because Houston did not allege unusual conditions beyond ordinary prison discipline.

The court dismissed Houston’s access-to-courts claims concerning allegedly falsified medical records submitted in opposition to his state-court petition and the denial of a sick call. He did not allege that the records affected the state court’s decision or that attending court without medication or a cane harmed his case. The court dismissed the mail-interference claim because Houston alleged only one incident of incoming-mail interference. It dismissed claims based solely on verbal harassment, retaliation claims, and claims against defendants for whom the complaint provided no factual allegations.

Preliminary injunction

The court denied Houston’s motion for a preliminary injunction. It stated that a Section 1983 action could not be used to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, so release from Fishkill was not available through that motion. The court also found that factual disputes about his glaucoma treatment prevented a showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, because the failure-to-protect claims against C.O. Cimminelli and C.O. Kinney were dismissed, Houston could not obtain an injunction based on those claims.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in part and denied it in part. The surviving defendants were ordered to answer by March 31, 2022. Houston’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied. The clerk was directed to terminate numerous defendants from the docket, including Michael Capra and other defendants whose claims had been dismissed, and to terminate the two motions. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.