Carter v. Akinyombo

Background

James Anthony Carter Jr. brought the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials who violate federal constitutional rights. He alleged that officials at Fishkill Correctional Facility violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide adequate treatment for severe left-hip pain and by delaying a needed hip-replacement surgery.

Carter alleged that medical providers diagnosed severe degenerative osteoarthritis, repeatedly agreed that hip replacement was needed, and told him that the surgery would be scheduled. The surgery was scheduled for January 2020 but did not occur. Carter alleged that the delay continued during the COVID-19 pandemic, that he repeatedly complained about severe pain, and that officials told him the surgery depended on the surgeon’s availability and the resumption of routine care. He also alleged that Akinyombo responded to grievances, raised Carter’s priority level, discussed rescheduling the surgery, and considered moving him to a more accessible part of the facility.

The complaint also contained allegations against Michelle Centanni, whom Carter identified as responsible for scheduling surgical appointments. The opinion states that Carter had not requested a summons or served Centanni. The motion addressed in this opinion was filed by Akinyombo, Katie Ngbodi, and Mariamma Baby, also known as Thomas.

Motion and Legal Standards

The served defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a claim for relief. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and viewed them favorably to Carter, while explaining that even a complaint filed without a lawyer must contain enough facts to make liability plausible.

The court construed the complaint as asserting an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim. Such a claim requires allegations showing both a sufficiently serious medical need and that the defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health. Negligence or medical malpractice alone is not enough.

Court’s Analysis

Personal involvement. The court rejected the argument that Akinyombo was not personally involved. Carter alleged that Akinyombo learned about the worsening hip condition through grievances, responded to those grievances, discussed the situation with Carter, said he would consult with medical officials about rescheduling the surgery, and considered moving Carter to another part of the facility. The court concluded that these allegations went beyond merely receiving Carter’s letters and were enough, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, to allege Akinyombo’s personal involvement.

Seriousness and delay. The court recognized that the need for hip-replacement surgery can constitute a serious medical need. It nevertheless concluded that Carter had not alleged an objectively unjustifiable delay. According to the complaint, Carter was approved for surgery, placed on a priority level, and was to be scheduled based on Dr. Holder’s schedule after routine care resumed. The court also considered allegations that the pandemic reduced hospital bed availability and that the surgery was subject to the surgeon’s availability. The court stated that these allegations did not objectively support an unjustifiable delay.

Deliberate indifference. The court further concluded that, even if the objective requirement were satisfied, the complaint did not adequately allege the defendants’ required mental state. Carter did not allege that the served defendants directly controlled the surgery schedule. The court also noted that the allegations showed continuing medical visits, efforts to contact officials involved in scheduling, Akinyombo’s raising of Carter’s priority level, and circumstances involving the pandemic, hospital bed availability, and Dr. Holder’s schedule. The court concluded that the allegations did not sufficiently show that the served defendants deliberately disregarded Carter’s medical needs.

Qualified immunity. The defendants also argued that they were protected by qualified immunity, a doctrine that can shield officials from liability when their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right or when it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their conduct was lawful. Because the court found that the complaint failed to state a constitutional claim, it did not address qualified immunity.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the served defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Carter’s Eighth Amendment claim against Akinyombo, Ngbodi, and Thomas without prejudice and granted Carter leave to file a Third Amended Complaint by July 29, 2022. The order stated that, if Carter failed to file that complaint within the allowed time and could not show good cause for the failure, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice.