Lee v. Korobkova

Background

Joseph Lee, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying court fees, sued employees of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and medical providers involved in his care at Sullivan Correctional Facility. He alleged that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by providing inadequate care related to cataract surgery and later complications that he said left him blind in his left eye. He also alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act based on the denial of requested accommodations, and First Amendment retaliation based on a grievance concerning his medical treatment.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, which Lee did not oppose despite receiving several extensions and nearly seven months to respond. The court nevertheless reviewed defendants’ evidence rather than treating the motion as automatically established. The court also held that Lee’s earlier notice of appeal did not prevent it from deciding the summary-judgment motion because the earlier order had not decided the merits or conclusively ended the case.

Medical-care claim

The court held that the undisputed evidence showed reasonable medical care rather than deliberate indifference, which requires conscious disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm. Dr. Sai Gandham performed the cataract surgery without documented immediate complications, examined Lee at two follow-up visits, and prescribed eye drops. Dr. Alex Trolenberg examined Lee in an emergency room, consulted an ophthalmologist, diagnosed acute conjunctivitis, continued the prescribed treatment, and discharged Lee in stable condition. Dr. Yelena Korobkova arranged outside medical appointments and sent Lee to the emergency room after a scheduled ophthalmology visit did not occur. Nurse Judith Camara addressed Lee’s complaints, examined him, reminded him to use his medication, and referred him to a doctor when she observed drainage from his left eye.

The court concluded that these facts could not support a reasonable jury finding that Gandham, Trolenberg, Korobkova, or Camara consciously disregarded Lee’s medical needs. It also rejected Lee’s Eighth Amendment claim concerning the accommodation request, finding that Eve Simmons, Ariel Escobar, and Diane Hinton sincerely believed Lee did not meet the facility’s criteria for severe visual impairment. The court granted summary judgment on the claim against Superintendent William F. Keyser because denying a grievance, by itself, did not show deliberate indifference. It also granted summary judgment on the claim concerning unnamed Sullivan officials allegedly bringing COVID-19 into the facility because Lee did not identify evidence that any defendant was personally involved.

Disability-accommodation claims

Lee requested a lamp, tape player, talking watch, hat, headphones, indoor sunglasses, large print, and magnifiers. Hinton found no medical verification supporting the request. Simmons and Escobar denied it because the available records did not show that Lee met the facility’s stated criteria for legal blindness or severe visual impairment.

The court granted summary judgment on Lee’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504. It found that the medical records described an eye infection and did not establish that Lee had a qualifying disability. The court also held that, even assuming Lee had a disability, the record did not identify a prison program or service that he was unable to access because of the denial of accommodations. The court therefore did not decide whether another legal defense—the Eleventh Amendment—would bar damages claims against individual defendants in their official capacities.

Retaliation claim

Lee alleged that Simmons, Escobar, and Hinton denied his accommodation request in retaliation for his grievance against Camara. The court assumed, without deciding, that Lee could satisfy the requirements of protected conduct and adverse action. It nevertheless found no evidence that those defendants knew about the grievance or that the grievance substantially influenced their decision. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Lee permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.