Wheeler v. NYC DOC

Background

Brett Wheeler, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that another incarcerated person threw hot water on him in a Rikers Island facility, causing burns to his chest and right arm. The opinion recounts differing dates in Wheeler’s pleadings: the initial complaint alleged an incident on June 6, 2018, while the Second Amended Complaint alleged October 16, 2019; the opinion also refers once to October 16, 2018. Wheeler alleged that Captain Dymita Harper, Corrections Officer Justin Gonzalez, and an officer identified during the proceedings as Jasmine Roberts were involved because they worked on the date of the incident.

Wheeler’s claims were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits suits against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. The court read the Second Amended Complaint as asserting two claims: that the officers failed to protect Wheeler from the other inmate and that they denied him adequate medical care. Wheeler did not oppose the motion to dismiss, but the court explained that it still had to decide whether the complaint stated a legally sufficient claim.

Failure-to-Protect Claim

The court considered the claim under both the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to pretrial detainees, and the Eighth Amendment, which applies to convicted prisoners, because the Second Amended Complaint did not identify Wheeler’s status at the time of the alleged incident.

The court held that Wheeler did not allege facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm that officers could have anticipated or prevented. He did not allege a prior altercation with the inmate, a request to be separated from that inmate, or other facts showing that officers knew or had reason to know of a risk. The court also observed that the hot-water attack was instantaneous and therefore did not give officers an opportunity to stop it. Wheeler alleged only that the defendants worked on the date of the incident, which did not plausibly show that they knew or should have known about a serious risk or failed to take reasonable protective measures.

Medical-Care Claim

The court did not decide whether Wheeler adequately alleged a sufficiently serious medical need. It held instead that he failed to allege facts showing that any defendant had the required culpable state of mind—meaning that the defendant intentionally or recklessly failed to respond reasonably to a known or reasonably foreseeable medical risk. The allegation that the defendants worked on the date of the incident was not enough to support a plausible medical-care claim.

Disposition

The court concluded that neither claim was adequately pleaded. Because Wheeler had already received two opportunities to amend and had been given specific instructions about the missing allegations, the court determined that there was no indication a third amended complaint would state a valid claim. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. The Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and Wheeler was not given leave to amend again. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to close the case.

Additional Note

The opinion’s caption and body identify the defendants somewhat differently: the caption lists Captain Harper, a Corrections Officer Harper with badge number 1195, and Corrections Officer Gonzalez, while the motion is described as being filed by Captain Harper, Corrections Officer Gonzalez, and Corrections Officer Roberts. The opinion states that the City identified Roberts as the officer assigned to the facility with shield number 1195.