Hall v. Department of Corrections Medical Department
- Nelson Roman
- 7:18-cv-06892
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Hall v. Department of Corrections Medical Department, Judge Roman dismissed Hall’s state medical-malpractice case for lack of jurisdiction after granting defendants’ motion.
Keith Hall, DOCCS, Dr. Feliz Ezekwe, and Dr. Rasia Ferdous. The action ended because the federal court found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; the conclusion states that Hall could renew the action in state court.
What happened
Keith Hall, who was representing himself, sued over medical care for his prosthetic eye while he was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. His Second Amended Complaint asserted only a state medical-malpractice claim against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, based on an alleged delay in eye surgery.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case because the federal court lacked authority to hear the state claim. Hall did not oppose the motion and did not assert any federal claim in his latest complaint. The court also treated his claims against Dr. Feliz Ezekwe and Dr. Rasia Ferdous as abandoned because he did not include claims against them or respond to the defendants’ arguments.
The court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, stating that Hall could renew the action in state court. Judge Nelson S. Roman directed the Clerk to terminate the case.
The detailed version
- Hall v. Department of Corrections Medical Department · No. 7:18-cv-06892
- Nelson Roman
- July 25, 2022
Background
Keith Hall, proceeding without a lawyer, sued over medical treatment for his prosthetic eye during his incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. He alleged that delaying ocular surgery for at least 20 months caused his orbital ball to sink, weakened the muscle controlling his left eyelid, and ultimately required a second surgery in 2019. He alleged that the State was careless and reckless in delaying the surgery and disregarding his letters and medical records.
The operative Second Amended Complaint asserted one state-law claim for negligent medical malpractice against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). It did not assert a federal constitutional claim. The defendants named in the motion were Dr. Feliz Ezekwe, Dr. Rasia Ferdous, and DOCCS.
Procedural history
The court had previously dismissed claims against certain medical departments on Eleventh Amendment grounds. It later dismissed claims against defendants in their official capacities with prejudice and dismissed claims against defendants in their individual capacities without prejudice and with permission to replead. In July 2021, Hall filed the Second Amended Complaint after the court dismissed his Amended Complaint, dismissing all claims against one defendant with prejudice and claims against Dr. Ferdous and Dr. Ezekwe without prejudice to replead.
The defendants filed a motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the case. Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Hall did not file an opposition.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Hall’s latest complaint clearly asserted only a state tort claim. Hall identified the legal basis as “tort – negligence – malpractice” and sought to proceed under the federal court’s supplemental, formerly called pendent, jurisdiction. Because the complaint contained no federal claim, the court concluded that federal-question jurisdiction was unavailable. The court also stated that it lacked a basis to exercise jurisdiction based on citizenship and the amount in controversy.
The court further concluded that Hall had abandoned any claims against Dr. Ezekwe and Dr. Ferdous. Hall did not assert claims against them in the Second Amended Complaint and did not address the defendants’ arguments for dismissal. The court therefore treated those claims as abandoned.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and stated that Hall’s action was dismissed without prejudice to renew in state court. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and the case and to mail Hall a copy of the opinion.
The opinion contains an internal inconsistency: its opening states that the motion was granted and the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed “with prejudice,” while the conclusion states that the action was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and “without prejudice to renew in state court.” The conclusion provides the more specific final disposition, but the conflict should be noted.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.