Perkins v. Presley

Background

Derrick Perkins, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, sued Warden Ada Presley, several New York City Department of Correction captains and correction officers, and medical doctor David Vilabrea. The court understood the complaint to assert seven claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute: inadequate medical care; unconstitutional conditions of confinement; inadequate investigation; negligence; First Amendment retaliation; conspiracy; and supervisory liability.

Perkins alleged that he bit into an apple containing a razor blade on January 9, 2018. He was taken to the medical clinic, where Dr. Vilabrea examined him and concluded that no treatment was necessary. Perkins claimed that the doctor should have sutured his mouth and that he later developed scar tissue. Perkins was then placed in an isolation cell that he said lacked a working toilet and sink for about three days. He also alleged that officers later found pieces of metal in a cell and improperly charged him with possessing contraband. He claimed that the defendants retaliated against him, conspired against him, and were responsible as supervisors or because of their work assignments.

The defendants moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Medical-care claim

The court granted summary judgment to Dr. Vilabrea on Perkins’s claim that he was deliberately denied adequate medical care. Because Perkins was a pretrial detainee, the court analyzed the claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The claim required evidence that the medical need was sufficiently serious and that the doctor acted intentionally or recklessly rather than merely negligently.

The court held that Perkins’s injury did not meet the required seriousness threshold. It emphasized that he was taken to the clinic promptly, that the medical records stated he had no discernible injury or active bleeding, and that Perkins identified scar tissue as the only lasting medical consequence. The court also found that Dr. Vilabrea exercised reasonable medical judgment by examining Perkins, consulting another doctor, and deciding that treatment was unnecessary. The court treated Perkins’s disagreement about suturing as insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.

Conditions-of-confinement claim

The court also granted summary judgment on Perkins’s claim concerning the isolation cell. It stated that the lack of a working toilet or sink for about three days was not sufficiently serious on the facts presented to constitute an unconstitutional condition. The court rejected the argument that the short duration alone automatically defeated the claim, but compared Perkins’s allegations with cases involving substantially more severe conditions.

The court separately held that Perkins had not shown that any named defendant knew, or should have known, about the broken toilet or sink. His sworn testimony stated that he told an unidentified captain about the conditions, and the court found no evidence identifying that captain as one of the defendants. The claim therefore failed both because the conditions were not sufficiently serious and because deliberate indifference by a named defendant was not shown.

Investigation and negligence claims

The court granted summary judgment on the inadequate-investigation claim. It held that there is generally no constitutional right to an adequate investigation and noted that Captain Lue did investigate the razor-blade incident. Perkins’s disagreement with the investigation’s outcome did not create a constitutional claim.

The court also granted summary judgment to Captain Tunsil on the negligence claim. It held that § 1983 does not create a general federal negligence claim and that liability cannot be based only on a person’s supervisory or work-related role. The court further noted that Perkins had never directly interacted with Captain Tunsil and had not shown that she personally breached a duty to him.

Retaliation claim

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on Perkins’s First Amendment retaliation claim. Perkins identified a grievance about the razor incident as his protected activity. Regarding the isolation cell, the court found no causal connection because Perkins was placed there before he filed the grievance.

Regarding the later cell search and contraband infraction, the court found no evidence that Correction Officer Torres planted contraband or that Captain Vazquez acted with a retaliatory motive. The court characterized Perkins’s assertions as conclusory and speculative and noted that the record did not show that Vazquez knew about the earlier grievance.

Conspiracy and supervisory-liability claims

The court granted summary judgment on the conspiracy claim. It held that Perkins had not shown an underlying constitutional violation or evidence of an agreement among the defendants to violate his rights. The court also stated that the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine, which generally treats employees of one entity as legally incapable of conspiring with one another in this context, independently barred the claim under the district courts’ approach in the circuit.

The court granted summary judgment to Warden Presley and Captain Tunsil on the supervisory-liability claim. It found no evidence that either defendant was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. The court held that Presley’s position as warden and Tunsil’s role overseeing food service were not enough to impose liability under § 1983.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. It did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Perkins permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to close the motion and the case.