Veras v. Jacobson

Background

Franklin Veras, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Dr. A. Jacobson and Dr. T. Udeshi under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and also asserted state-law claims, including negligence and medical malpractice.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed all claims against Udeshi with prejudice and dismissed all but one claim against Jacobson without prejudice. The remaining claim concerned Jacobson’s alleged conduct on July 8, 2016. After discovery, Jacobson moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Veras did not submit papers opposing the motion, but the court independently reviewed the record because Veras was representing himself.

Legal standard

The Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference to prisoners’ serious medical needs. A claim requires proof that the medical problem was sufficiently serious and that the defendant actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. A § 1983 claim also requires proof that the defendant was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation.

At the summary-judgment stage, the moving party must show that there is no genuine dispute over a material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must generally view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, but unsupported allegations cannot defeat a properly supported motion. The court also noted that failing to oppose summary judgment, by itself, does not justify granting the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the undisputed evidence showed Jacobson did not treat Veras on July 8, 2016. No dental or medical records documented a Jacobson visit on that date. The records instead documented Jacobson’s treatment of Veras on June 29 and July 18. Neither of those records referred to Valerie Monroe, whom Veras alleged was present during the July 8 incident. Monroe’s declaration also stated that she had no interaction with Veras on July 8, 2016, or at another time resembling the alleged incident.

The court concluded that the contemporaneous medical records, together with Jacobson’s and Monroe’s accounts, contradicted Veras’s unsupported allegation so completely that no reasonable jury could accept it. Because the evidence did not establish that Jacobson was personally involved in the alleged July 8 treatment, the remaining deliberate-indifference claim could not proceed.

The court also stated that it could not consider Veras’s state-law claims against Jacobson. Claims against Jacobson in his official capacity were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, while claims against him in his personal capacity were barred by New York Correction Law § 24 because the alleged conduct arose within the scope of his employment. The court further stated that the New York Constitution did not provide a separate claim where § 1983 remedies were available.

Disposition

The court granted Jacobson’s Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. It directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, mail Veras a copy of the opinion, and close the case.