Slade v. Correctional Health John Doe

Background

Ricco D. Slade, who was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island, filed this self-represented lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued a doctor identified as “Correctional Health John Doe,” alleging inadequate medical care and discriminatory treatment arising from events at the Eric M. Tayler Center on Rikers Island.

Slade alleged that he tested positive for COVID-19 on January 13, 2023, and had been a smoker before his incarceration. He stated that the doctor who ordered the test said he would return to assist Slade but instead left him with a nurse. Slade was given a mask, moved to an isolated room, placed in a bullpen, and then sent to West Facility for a 14-day quarantine. He alleged that a nurse there provided Tylenol for his pain and told him to drink fluids and rest. Slade also alleged that he suffered restless nights from COVID-19 symptoms, that NYC Health had advertised treatment for people with pre-existing conditions or who smoked, and that prison officials fabricated a refusal concerning a January 17, 2023 court date.

Screening analysis

Because Slade was detained before trial, the court analyzed his inadequate-medical-care claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To state such a claim, he had to allege facts showing both that his medical condition or the lack of care created an objectively serious risk and that the defendant intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing, or having reason to know, of an excessive health or safety risk.

The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that Slade’s medical condition could be objectively serious. It nevertheless found that the allegations against the John Doe doctor did not show deliberate indifference. The complaint alleged only that the doctor examined Slade, stepped away, said he would return, and did not return before Slade received care at a medical facility. The court stated that this did not show that the doctor knew or should have known of an excessive risk and ignored it, or that the doctor was personally involved in the later care.

The court also determined that the allegations concerning the nurse did not state a constitutional claim. Giving Slade Tylenol and advising him to drink fluids and rest reflected, at most, a disagreement over the proper treatment, rather than deliberate indifference. The court reserved the question whether it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims because it was not clear that Slade could state a federal claim.

Order

Because Slade was representing himself and might be able to add facts supporting a valid claim, the court granted him leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must name the individuals involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, describe his injuries, and identify the relief sought. If a defendant’s name is unknown, Slade may use a John Doe or Jane Doe designation, but the court stated that doing so does not extend the time limit for identifying that defendant.

The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. The court ordered Slade to submit it to the Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-CV-1419 (LTS). No summons will issue at this time. The court stated that if Slade does not comply within the allowed time and cannot show good cause, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.