Feliz v. Westchester Department of Corrections

Background

Hiram Alberto Feliz, a former pretrial detainee at Westchester County Jail, brought this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that he fell during a basketball game because of a crack in the court and broke his hand. He alleged that he waited four days to see a practitioner, waited another two weeks before being transferred to Westchester Medical Center, and that Dr. Ulloa misdiagnosed the injury as not being a fracture. About four months later, Dr. Magill performed surgery on the hand. Feliz alleged that he suffered nerve damage, including loss of feeling and movement in two fingers.

The court had previously dismissed Feliz’s claims against C.O. Fumes and C.O. Clark. Dr. Magill answered the complaint and filed the motion addressed in this order. Dr. Ulloa did not answer, and the court stated that it did not appear that Dr. Ulloa had been served. Dr. Magill’s motion was unopposed, although the court noted uncertainty about whether Feliz received the court’s briefing schedule or Dr. Magill’s papers.

Legal standard

The court applied the standard for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), which it said is the same as the standard for dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). At this stage, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly support a right to relief. Because Feliz was representing himself, the court read his complaint liberally, but it explained that liberal construction does not allow the court to rewrite missing allegations.

The court treated the Second Amended Complaint as asserting a § 1983 claim against Dr. Magill for deliberate indifference to medical needs. That claim required allegations showing both a sufficiently serious medical condition and that Dr. Magill acted with deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference requires more than negligence: the official must have known about and disregarded an excessive risk of serious harm. The court also explained that medical malpractice generally does not become a constitutional violation unless it involves culpable recklessness or conscious disregard of a substantial risk.

Court’s analysis

The court gave Feliz the benefit of favorable inferences and treated his factual allegations as true. It nevertheless concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege the required mental state for a deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Magill. Specifically, the court found no allegations suggesting that Dr. Magill knew of and intentionally disregarded an excessive risk to Feliz’s health. The court characterized Feliz’s allegations as negligence or medical error amounting to medical malpractice, which was insufficient to establish deliberate indifference under § 1983.

Disposition

The court granted Dr. Magill’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Feliz’s claims against Dr. Magill without prejudice and granted Feliz leave to file a Third Amended Complaint consistent with the order by October 23, 2023. The court stated that failure to file by that deadline, without good cause, would result in dismissal with prejudice of the claims dismissed without prejudice in this order. The order did not resolve the claims against Dr. Ulloa; it stated that Dr. Ulloa had not answered and apparently had not been served. The clerk was directed to terminate Dr. Magill’s motion and mail the order and docket sheet to Feliz.