Latouche v. Dr. John Hammer

Background

Valery Latouche, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, brought this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserted claims concerning medical care he received during pretrial detention in the Rockland County Jail and during incarceration in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

The court previously dismissed claims against Rockland County Jail because it lacked the capacity to be sued, and dismissed claims against Rockland County because they were time barred and failed to state a claim. After several amendments, Latouche filed a Fourth Amended Complaint naming only Dr. John Hammer. The court had previously explained the pleading standards and the need to allege facts showing each defendant’s personal involvement.

Claims Against Dr. Hammer

Latouche alleged that Dr. Hammer failed to adequately address his medical condition and was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. The court explained that an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim requires facts showing both a sufficiently serious deprivation of medical care and that the official knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. Negligence, medical malpractice, or a disagreement about treatment is not enough by itself to establish deliberate indifference.

The court held that the complaint did not allege facts showing that Dr. Hammer personally made or participated in the decisions concerning Latouche’s biopsy, specialist referral, or other treatment. The complaint described actions by other medical providers or officials, but did not connect those decisions to Dr. Hammer. The court also held that, even assuming Dr. Hammer made those decisions, Latouche alleged only conclusory statements that Hammer was aware of his condition and failed to provide reasonable care. Those allegations did not plausibly show deliberate indifference.

Latouche also brought a “class of one” equal-protection claim, alleging that other prisoners received cosmetic surgery for medical conditions while he did not. The court held that he did not provide enough details to show that those prisoners were extremely similar to him or that Dr. Hammer was involved in the decisions concerning them.

The complaint also referred to an alleged denial of general surgery in 2018. The court stated that Latouche did not provide facts supporting either part of the deliberate-indifference test for that allegation and did not explain why the claim should not be considered time barred.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court declined to grant further leave to amend. It explained that Latouche had been advised in writing and at a conference about the deficiencies in his pleadings, yet had not stated a claim despite five attempts. He also had not requested another amendment or identified additional facts that would cure the deficiencies.

Judge Cathy Seibel dismissed Latouche’s claims against Dr. Hammer for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.