Bridges v. The State of New York Correctional Services

Background

Donnell Bridges proceeded without a lawyer and sued the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, several medical and prison officials, and Montefiore Mount Vernon Hospital. He invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state law for violating federal constitutional rights, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The opinion identifies the individual defendants as Dr. Marc Janis, Superintendent Thomas Griffin, Dr. Carl J. Koenigsmann, Dr. Frederick Bernstein, Dr. Yelena Korobkova, Dr. Robert Bentivegna, Physician Assistant Enrique Pagan, and Nurse Administrator Dawn Osselmann. The opinion explains that Dr. Robert Bentivegna and “Dr. Pennsylvania” were the same person, despite being listed separately at the beginning of the case.

Bridges alleged that Dr. Janis injured him during a biopsy, that he waited 39 days for an examination by Dr. Bernstein, and that Dr. Bentivegna was responsible for the delay. He alleged that Dr. Korobkova did not prescribe antibiotics ordered by another doctor and denied his requests for a walking cane and medical boots. He also alleged that Dr. Koenigsmann referred a complaint to a subordinate who took no corrective action, and that Griffin and Osselmann denied him admission to the Unit for the Physically Disabled. Bridges sought damages for pain, suffering, ejaculation problems, and erectile dysfunction that he attributed to the biopsy.

Claims and prior rulings

The court had previously dismissed with prejudice Bridges’s deliberate-indifference claims against the Department of Corrections and individual defendants in their official capacities, his medical-malpractice claim against Dr. Janis and the hospital, and his Americans with Disabilities Act claims against Griffin and Osselmann. It dismissed without prejudice for renewal his deliberate-indifference claims against individual defendants in their individual capacities, his medical-malpractice claim against Dr. Korobkova, and his Fourteenth Amendment claim. Bridges later filed the Second Amended Complaint at issue in this opinion.

Court’s analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court may dismiss a complaint when its factual allegations, accepted as true, do not plausibly show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

For the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims, the court required allegations showing both a serious medical need and that each defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Bridges’s health or safety. The court held that Bridges’s general statement that the defendants knew of a substantial risk was conclusory and unsupported by specific facts. It reasoned that Dr. Janis’s alleged statement that he had made a mistake during the biopsy did not itself show deliberate indifference. The allegations about the 39-day delay did not say that Dr. Bernstein or Dr. Bentivegna controlled scheduling or deliberately caused the delay. The allegations about Dr. Korobkova described, at most, a disagreement about treatment and did not allege a continuing infection or an intent to disregard Bridges’s medical needs. The allegations against Pagan did not identify a specific instance in which Pagan refused specialist care and were contradicted by the allegation that Pagan arranged the biopsy appointment. The allegations against Dr. Koenigsmann did not describe his state of mind. Finally, Bridges did not allege facts showing that he had a serious medical need or required 24-hour nursing care for placement in the Unit for the Physically Disabled, or that Griffin and Osselmann acted with the required mental state. The court dismissed these Eighth Amendment claims with prejudice.

The court treated Bridges’s Fourteenth Amendment claims against Dr. Bernstein, Dr. Bentivegna, and Pagan as deliberate-indifference claims. Because Bridges was a convicted inmate rather than a pretrial detainee, the court analyzed those claims under the Eighth Amendment and dismissed them along with the deliberate-indifference claims.

The court also rejected Bridges’s renewed Americans with Disabilities Act claims against Griffin and Osselmann. It reiterated that the earlier claims concerned the quality or amount of medical care rather than disability discrimination, did not allege an entitlement to the requested benefits, and were asserted against individual defendants rather than a public entity. The new allegations about denial of placement in the Unit for the Physically Disabled were conclusory and did not cure those defects. The court therefore reiterated that these claims had been dismissed with prejudice.

For the state medical-malpractice claims, the court held that the claim against Dr. Janis remained barred by the two-and-a-half-year limitations period. Even using the later biopsy date alleged by Bridges, April 16, 2014, he filed the action on March 27, 2017. The court therefore reiterated that the malpractice claim against Dr. Janis had been dismissed with prejudice. Because it dismissed the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the power to hear related state-law claims—involving the other defendants, and did not decide the defendants’ claimed immunity under New York Correction Law § 24.

As to Montefiore Mount Vernon Hospital, the court found that Bridges’s theory depended on liability for Dr. Janis’s conduct, but all claims against Dr. Janis had been dismissed. The Second Amended Complaint also did not allege the hospital’s direct involvement in the medical procedures or treatment. The court therefore dismissed the claims against the hospital.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed Bridges’s Second Amended Complaint in its entirety without leave to replead. It directed the clerk to enter judgment, terminate the motions, and close the case.