Fredricks v. NINAMARIE FOLLACARO

Background

Nigel Naguan Fredericks, representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ninamarie Follacaro. He alleged that Follacaro, a dental hygienist employed by the Correctional Health Services Division of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs while he was a pretrial detainee at Riker’s Island. Fredericks alleged that he sought dental treatment for an impacted and deteriorating tooth, but was not seen by a dental professional until January 5, 2021. At that appointment, Follacaro told him the visit was for a cleaning and that he needed a separate appointment for an extraction. Fredericks agreed to that suggestion but filed this action seven days later. He sought at least $97,000 for pain and suffering.

Motion to Dismiss and Magistrate Judge’s Report

Follacaro moved to dismiss on two grounds: that Fredericks had not exhausted the administrative remedies required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and that he had failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs. Fredericks did not respond to the motion.

Magistrate Judge James L. Cott recommended granting the motion and dismissing the action. Neither party objected to the report. Judge George B. Daniels therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.

Exhaustion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally requires a prisoner to complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing a lawsuit about prison conditions. The court stated that the complaint was unclear about whether Fredericks had pursued those procedures. However, the timing of the lawsuit showed that he could not have completed the applicable four-step grievance process. The first step alone required five business days, while Fredericks filed suit only seven days after the events at issue. The court therefore concluded that the action had to be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Failure to State a Claim

The court also agreed that Fredericks had not adequately pleaded a deliberate-indifference claim. The court explained that such a claim requires allegations showing both a sufficiently serious deprivation of medical care and a sufficiently culpable state of mind by the defendant.

The court found that Fredericks did not provide facts showing the intensity or duration of his alleged pain and discomfort. It also noted that he did not allege that he told Follacaro about pain or discomfort. Instead, he described the tooth as a “slight minor” situation and agreed to return for a separate extraction appointment, which the court viewed as inconsistent with an urgent condition. The court further found that Fredericks did not allege facts showing that Follacaro knew or should have known that he was experiencing serious pain or that she was qualified to perform an extraction.

Ruling

Judge Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Cott’s report in full. The court granted Follacaro’s motion to dismiss, directed the clerk to close the motion and the action, and agreed that the dismissal should be with prejudice because Fredericks had already had multiple opportunities to correct his pleading deficiencies and the time to exhaust administrative remedies had passed.