Illescas v. Annucci

Background

Silvio R. Illescas, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and also asserted a claim under Article I, § 5 of the New York Constitution.

Illescas alleged that he developed severe COVID-19 symptoms in April 2020, tested positive, and was treated at Vassar Brothers Medical Center before returning to Green Haven Correctional Facility. He continued to report pain, breathing problems, stomach symptoms, dizziness, headaches, and other complications. He received treatment from prison medical staff, including examinations, medications, a stool test, and a CAT scan. He alleged that the treatment was inadequate, that some symptoms were misdiagnosed, that a nurse gave him medication he believed was expired, and that Defendant Albert Acrish later ridiculed him and said nothing could be done.

Claims and Motions

The court understood the complaint to assert two groups of federal claims: deliberate indifference claims against Vassar Brothers Medical Center and associated medical personnel, and deliberate indifference claims against Anthony J. Annucci, Dr. John Morley, Dr. Robert V. Bentivegna, and Albert Acrish. The state defendants were sued in both their individual and official capacities. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Reasons for the Ruling

Vassar defendants. The court dismissed the claims against Vassar Brothers Medical Center and the associated medical defendants because the complaint did not adequately allege that they were acting as state actors. Although private medical providers can sometimes be treated as state actors when providing medical care to prisoners under a government contract or similar arrangement, the complaint alleged only that prison officials told them Illescas was doing well and could be discharged. The court held that this was not enough. These claims were dismissed without prejudice, and Illescas was given leave to amend.

Official-capacity claims. The court dismissed the claims against the state defendants in their official capacities. It held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Illescas’s requests for damages and declaratory relief based on past conduct. The complaint did not seek the type of ongoing, forward-looking relief that can avoid that constitutional protection. These claims were dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend.

Individual-capacity claims against Annucci, Morley, and Bentivegna. A person cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because of a supervisory position. The complaint did not mention Annucci beyond the caption and list of defendants. As to Morley, it alleged only that he received a letter and assigned a subordinate to respond. As to Bentivegna, it alleged that he received and rejected requests for a different medical provider. The court held that receiving letters, responding to complaints, or denying a request for a different provider did not adequately show personal involvement in denying medical care. These claims were dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend.

Individual-capacity claim against Acrish. The court dismissed the deliberate-indifference claim against Acrish. To state such a claim, a prisoner must allege both a sufficiently serious medical need and that the defendant knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. The court concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Acrish acted with that required level of intent or recklessness. At most, the allegations described a misdiagnosis, disagreement over treatment, or inadequate care, which the court held was not enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. This claim was dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend.

State-law claims and Disposition

After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—in light of the early stage of the case and the absence of an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the New York constitutional claims.

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the claims without prejudice. It allowed Illescas to file an amended complaint by January 10, 2023. The court stated that failure to amend within the allowed time, without good cause, would result in dismissal with prejudice of the claims dismissed without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the specified motions and mail Illescas the opinion and an amended prisoner civil-rights complaint form.