Shomo v. State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision…

Background

Jose J. Shomo, who was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility and proceeded without a lawyer, sued the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), Acting DOCCS Commissioner Anthony Annucci, Chief DOCCS Medical Officer Dr. John Morley, and Dr. Gaetan Zamilus. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.

Shomo alleged that DOCCS and its officials were deliberately indifferent to spinal, esophageal, and cardiovascular conditions and denied him various treatments and assistance with daily activities. He also alleged that DOCCS failed to preserve or properly review his medical records, that he received misbehavior reports because staff did not recognize his medical conditions, and that DOCCS failed to take adequate steps to prevent COVID-19. He sought class-action status, a three-judge panel, appointed counsel, and equitable relief.

Shomo did not oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss, even after the court extended his deadline several times. The court nevertheless reviewed the complaint rather than treating the motion as automatically granted.

Reasons for Dismissal

Claims against DOCCS. The court held that DOCCS, as an instrumentality of New York, was generally protected by state immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. It concluded that Shomo’s claims against DOCCS under § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act were barred. The court explained that the disability claim did not allege discriminatory intent or ill will and that the underlying constitutional claims failed for the reasons discussed elsewhere in the opinion.

Claims against the individual defendants. For a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege each defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional violation. The court found that Shomo mainly relied on the officials’ positions, their receipt or handling of complaints, and conclusory allegations. Those allegations did not show that Annucci, Morley, or Zamilus personally caused the alleged constitutional violations. The § 1983 claims against the individual defendants were therefore dismissed for lack of personal involvement.

Medical-care claims. The court explained that an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care requires allegations showing both a sufficiently serious deprivation and that officials knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. The court found that Shomo alleged receiving repeated examinations, treatment from specialists, and periods in medical facilities. It concluded that his allegations generally described disagreements about the treatment he preferred rather than denial of adequate medical care.

The court also found that the complaint did not allege that the challenged treatment delays worsened his spinal or cardiovascular conditions. It identified internal inconsistencies in the allegations concerning his esophageal condition, including allegations that he had access to a basin, was monitored by camera, and believed a call bell would not help him summon assistance. The court further held that alleged misdiagnoses or failures to preserve medical records did not show the required deliberate disregard for his health.

COVID-19 claim. The court held that Shomo did not allege that he was exposed to COVID-19 or provide facts explaining how, when, where, or for how long he faced a substantial risk. The court noted that he acknowledged some DOCCS precautions, including mask-related misbehavior reports and spaced seating. It concluded that the complaint’s general allegations about COVID-19 conditions in DOCCS facilities did not plausibly show deliberate indifference.

Misbehavior-report claim. The court held that prisoners do not have a general constitutional right to be free from false accusations in misbehavior reports. A claim requires something more, such as retaliation for exercising a constitutional right. Shomo did not allege retaliation or that he was denied a hearing before being deprived of a liberty interest. The court dismissed this claim.

Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims. The court found that Shomo did not identify the accommodations allegedly rescinded or explain when or how they were rescinded. It also held that he did not allege discrimination because of a disability. The court distinguished a denial of services because of disability from a disagreement about the adequacy of medical services and concluded that the allegations did not state a claim under either disability statute.

Fee-waiver request under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The defendants also argued that Shomo had accumulated at least three prior dismissals that could count as “strikes” under the prisoner fee-waiver statute. The court declined to decide that branch of the motion because it was unnecessary after dismissing the complaint on other grounds. In the conclusion, the court stated that the request to revoke Shomo’s fee-waiver status was denied as moot. It also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim because amendment would be futile. The court directed the Clerk to close the case.