Long v. Griffin

Background

Maurice V. Long, representing himself, sued Thomas Griffin, Dr. Frederick Bernstein, Emily Williams, Mr. Ali Ece, and Dr. Robert Bentivegna under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a way to sue a state actor for violating rights protected by the Constitution or federal law. Long alleged that the defendants violated the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment by providing him with an old wheelchair that later broke. He also appeared to assert state-law claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Long alleged that he was using a wheelchair at Green Haven Correctional Facility and that the wheelchair was more than fifteen to twenty years old. On January 30, 2017, after he went to physical therapy, the wheelchair’s bottom axle broke while he was returning from the bathroom. The two sides of the wheelchair trapped him, and staff and other inmates helped remove him. Long alleged that he experienced extreme pain, chest pain, and continuing pain-related problems. He received a new wheelchair on March 13, 2017.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Long did not oppose the motion. The court nevertheless treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and read his self-represented filings liberally.

The court explained that a conditions-of-confinement claim requires facts showing both an objectively serious risk to health or safety and deliberate indifference. For a convicted prisoner, deliberate indifference requires that an official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk. The court noted that Long did not clearly identify whether he was a pretrial detainee or an incarcerated person serving a sentence, but stated that his claim failed under the applicable standards either way.

The court concluded that Long alleged the defendants knew the wheelchair was old and that it eventually broke, injuring him. It held that allowing an incarcerated person to use old or broken equipment, without more, generally amounts to negligence and does not show deliberate indifference. The court therefore dismissed Long’s Section 1983 claim. The court also noted that Long appeared to allege discrimination because other inmates allegedly received better wheelchairs, but found that he did not identify the basis for the alleged discrimination or which defendant was responsible.

State-Law Claims and Leave to Amend

After dismissing the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—in relation to Long’s negligence and emotional-distress claims, if any. The opinion did not decide the merits of those state-law claims.

The defendants asked the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, which would bar refiling the dismissed claims in that action. Because Long was representing himself, the court declined to dismiss the complaint with prejudice at that time and granted him leave to amend. The court ordered that an amended complaint be filed by May 23, 2022. It stated that failure to file an amended complaint within the allowed period, absent good cause, would result in dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Section 1983 claim was dismissed; the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims; and Long was granted leave to file an amended complaint by May 23, 2022.