Gardner v. Hochul

Background

Philip Jerome Gardner, an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility, proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He alleged that he was diagnosed with a cataract in his left eye in 2000, had a consultation for surgery that did not occur, and later became blind in that eye. The opinion also notes that it was unclear which eye Gardner referred to in part of his amended complaint and that he separately alleged at some point that he had gone from a cataract to glaucoma.

Gardner’s original complaint named Dr. Carl J. Koenigsmann and New York State Governor Kathy Hochul. The court previously explained that the complaint did not adequately state claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment or disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court gave Gardner 60 days to amend.

Gardner filed an amended complaint naming the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Koenigsmann, and former Governor Andrew M. Cuomo. The amended complaint asserted claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and requested “500 million plus punitive damages.” It also included a request for appointment of free counsel.

Standard and Analysis

The court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Those provisions require dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from that relief. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, while reading a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

The court construed the amended complaint as asserting two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and an unspecified Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim. The court did not construe the amended complaint as continuing to assert disability-discrimination claims. It stated that, even if such claims were asserted, they would fail for the same deficiencies identified in the earlier order.

Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court held that claims under Section 1983 against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, a state agency, and against Koenigsmann and Cuomo in their official capacities were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Lack of personal involvement. The court held that the claims against Koenigsmann and Cuomo in their individual capacities failed because Gardner did not allege their personal involvement in a constitutional violation. Gardner alleged that he complained to both officials. He also alleged that Koenigsmann told him to use the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s sick-call procedures. The court found that these allegations did not adequately connect Koenigsmann to the alleged violation and that Gardner did not explain Cuomo’s personal involvement.

Failure to plead an underlying constitutional violation. The court considered whether Gardner intended to assert a claim against the state based on an official policy. It held that such a claim could not proceed because Gardner had not adequately pleaded an underlying constitutional violation.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It did not grant leave to file another amended complaint because Gardner had already received an opportunity to amend and had not corrected the identified defects. The court denied the request for pro bono counsel as moot. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Gardner permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Gardner a copy of the order and close the case.