Barnes v. Uzu

Background

Sergio Barnes, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Dr. Edwin Uzu, Dr. Robert Bentivegna, Deputy Commissioner Dr. Carl Koenigsmann, Nurse Aileen McCarthy, Nurse Administrator Leslie Carey, and Dr. Abdul Akhand. He alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and state law. His claims concerned the treatment of an Achilles tendon injury he suffered while playing football at Green Haven Correctional Facility on September 10, 2016.

Barnes alleged that Dr. Uzu diagnosed the injury as a strained tendon, ordered an x-ray instead of an MRI, and declined to provide crutches. The x-ray did not show a broken bone. After continuing to report pain and difficulty bearing weight, Barnes received an MRI that showed a severe Achilles tendon tear. He was later referred for surgery, which occurred on March 7, 2017. He also alleged a delay in receiving physical therapy after surgery.

Barnes filed two prison grievances concerning the delays. One grievance concerned the delay in diagnosis and treatment; the other concerned the delay in physical therapy. The prison grievance committee agreed that there was no explanation for the delay in the physical-therapy consultation and recommended adequate medical care. The final prison grievance decision partially accepted Barnes’s request and stated that he was receiving appropriate treatment.

Defendants’ Motion and Timeliness

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. They argued that Barnes’s claims were untimely, that he had not adequately alleged each defendant’s personal involvement, that qualified immunity applied, and that the state-law claims should be dismissed.

Judge Karas rejected the timeliness argument. The court concluded that Barnes’s claims were subject to a three-year limitations period, but that the period was tolled while he pursued the prison grievance process. The court counted 481 days of tolling for the grievance concerning the diagnosis and treatment, 18 days for the grievance concerning physical therapy, and 84 days under New York executive orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court therefore held that both claims were timely when Barnes delivered his original complaint to prison officials for mailing on June 12, 2020.

Federal Civil-Rights Claims

The court held that Barnes did not plausibly allege deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment. That claim requires allegations showing both a sufficiently serious medical deprivation and that each defendant actually knew of and recklessly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. Each defendant also must have been personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation.

As to Dr. Uzu, the court held that the allegations showed, at most, negligent misdiagnosis and treatment. Barnes did not allege facts showing that Dr. Uzu intentionally or recklessly disregarded a known serious risk. The claims against Dr. Uzu were therefore dismissed.

As to Dr. Bentivegna, the court recognized that the complaint and attached records showed some involvement, including ordering the MRI and reviewing consultation reports. But the court held that the allegations did not show deliberate indifference. Dr. Bentivegna ordered the treatment Barnes requested and helped him obtain further care, and the complaint did not adequately connect him to the delay in physical therapy. The claims against Dr. Bentivegna were dismissed.

As to Dr. Koenigsmann, the complaint contained no allegations describing his involvement in the events. The claims against him were dismissed for lack of personal involvement.

As to Nurse McCarthy, the complaint alleged only that she provided initial care after Barnes’s injury. The court held that the complaint did not show that she knew of the later alleged risks or had authority to make the treatment decisions at issue. The claims against her were dismissed.

As to Nurse Administrator Carey, Barnes alleged that he sent her correspondence about his continuing symptoms and that she responded that his concerns had been addressed. The court held that these allegations did not plausibly show that she was deliberately indifferent, had authority to change his treatment, or was personally involved in a constitutional violation. The claim against her was dismissed.

As to Dr. Akhand, the court found that the complaint did not show involvement before the MRI. After the MRI, Dr. Akhand referred Barnes to a specialist, and the complaint did not adequately allege that he knew about or recklessly disregarded the later delay in physical therapy. The claims against Dr. Akhand were dismissed.

State-Law Claims

The court also dismissed Barnes’s state-law claims. It held that New York Correction Law § 24 bars damages actions in federal court against covered state employees in their individual capacities when the alleged conduct occurred within the scope of their employment. The court also stated that the New York Constitution did not provide an alternative private claim where § 1983 remedies were available.

Disposition

Judge Karas granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because this was the first adjudication of Barnes’s claims, the dismissal was without prejudice. The court gave Barnes 30 days to file an amended complaint containing all claims and factual allegations he wanted the court to consider. The opinion stated that failing to meet that deadline could result in dismissal with prejudice; that consequence was not entered as the disposition of this opinion.