Mescall v. Bronx Residential Center

Background

Sean Fitzgerald Mescall, who was representing himself, said he was in Bureau of Prisons custody but living on home confinement in Newburgh, New York. He alleged that the Bureau of Prisons had prevented him from using Dextroamp, a controlled ADHD medication prescribed by his private doctor. A doctor at Tri-Center prescribed Atomoxetine, which Mescall said caused severe nausea and vomiting, extreme fatigue, loss of appetite, and other symptoms. Mescall sought an order requiring the defendants to allow him to take Dextroamp and asked the court to seal the case.

Claims and screening analysis

The court screened the complaint under federal prisoner-screening laws. It held that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not cover the federal government or its agencies, so Mescall did not state a Title II claim against the Bureau of Prisons. The court also concluded that Mescall had not alleged that defendants discriminated against him, excluded him, or treated him differently because of his disability, so he failed to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act.

Mescall labeled his constitutional claim as substantive due process. The court explained that a medical-care challenge by a federal prisoner is governed by the more specific protection against deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, rather than substantive due process. The court assumed, for purposes of the order, that Mescall’s ADHD was a serious medical need, but found that he had not identified an individual defendant who knowingly disregarded a serious medical risk. The allegations also did not clearly identify the Bureau of Prisons policy affecting his treatment or show that the policy itself amounted to deliberate indifference. The court therefore allowed Mescall to replead a constitutional claim for injunctive relief and instructed him to describe the medical care he received, the relevant policies, officials’ knowledge of unsuccessful treatment, and later treatment steps.

Other motions and order

The court denied Mescall’s request for emergency preliminary injunctive relief because his submissions did not show either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions supporting that relief. The court granted in part his motion to seal and directed the Clerk to restrict viewing of the action to the parties at that stage. It deferred further consideration of sealing if the case proceeded.

The court granted Mescall leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and no summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Mescall did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying appeal fees.