Brandon v. Alam

Background

Chamma K. Brandon brought the case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claimed that Dr. Tasbirul M. Alam violated the First Amendment by retaliating against him for filing a medical malpractice lawsuit in New York State court. Brandon alleged that Alam retaliated by refusing to issue a medical shower pass that Brandon said he needed to use selenium sulfide to treat a persistent skin condition. Brandon requested an injunction requiring Alam to issue a shower pass and sought $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

The opinion describes Brandon’s skin condition as initially causing extreme pain in March 2016, followed by significant improvement. During the period when Alam did not issue a shower pass, from January through October 2017, Brandon described the condition as uncomfortable and said that it caused itching but not pain. The opinion also states that Alam continued treating Brandon’s other medical conditions, including hemorrhoids and asthma, and later issued additional shower passes.

Procedural History

Alam first moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no important factual dispute requires a trial. The court dismissed that motion without prejudice and reopened discovery for the limited purpose of allowing Alam to respond to an expert report that Brandon submitted in opposition. Alam then filed a second summary-judgment motion, which was the motion addressed in this opinion.

Legal Standard

A prisoner’s First Amendment retaliation claim requires proof that: (1) the plaintiff engaged in protected activity; (2) the defendant took adverse action; and (3) a connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse action. An adverse action is conduct that would deter a similarly situated person of ordinary firmness from exercising constitutional rights. The court stated that prisoner-retaliation claims must be examined with skepticism and particular care.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Brandon’s malpractice lawsuit was protected activity. It did not decide whether there was a causal connection between the lawsuit and the denial of the shower pass because it found that Brandon failed to establish the required adverse-action element.

The court assumed, for purposes of the motion, that Brandon could not use the selenium sulfide effectively without a shower pass. Even so, it concluded that the alleged denial of treatment was minimal. The court contrasted Brandon’s discomfort with cases involving substantially worse pain or injuries, denial of all medical treatment, or denial of necessary rehabilitative treatment. Because Brandon’s condition had improved after its initial outbreak and Alam continued treating his other medical conditions, the court ruled that the denial was not serious enough to deter a similarly situated person of ordinary firmness from filing a lawsuit.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Alam’s motion for summary judgment on Brandon’s First Amendment retaliation claim. The court denied Brandon’s requests for compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, directed the Clerk to enter judgment in Alam’s favor, terminated the motion at ECF No. 76, and terminated the action. The opinion separately notes that the request for a medical shower pass was moot because Brandon was no longer incarcerated.