Lurch, Jr. v. NYCHHC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-01567
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Lurch, Jr. v. NYCHHC, Judge Carter denied Lurch’s request to reconsider an earlier ruling rejecting his claims about detention conditions.
Robert D. Lurch, Jr.’s motion was denied, leaving the earlier ruling in place; the opinion also concerns the defendant health corporation, the City of New York, and the individual defendants named in the caption.
What happened
In Lurch, Jr. v. NYCHHC, Robert D. Lurch, Jr., representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its January 17, 2023 ruling. He argued that the court had misunderstood his amended complaint as alleging deliberate indifference instead of unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
The court considered the alternative conditions-of-confinement claim. Lurch alleged that flu-infected detainees were not isolated, that he caught the flu, and that he later developed pneumonia. The court found that his allegations did not show an extreme enough deprivation or that the defendants intentionally or recklessly disregarded a serious risk, especially because the facility examined and treated him after he developed symptoms.
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. concluded that Lurch had not identified facts or law warranting a change to the earlier ruling, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Lurch, Jr. v. NYCHHC · No. 1:21-cv-01567
- Andrew Carter
- Sept. 29, 2023
Background
Robert D. Lurch, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, moved for reconsideration of the court’s January 17, 2023 Opinion and Order. The earlier order granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Lurch argued that the court had wrongly understood his amended complaint as asserting a deliberate-indifference claim rather than a conditions-of-confinement claim.
Lurch alleged that, while detained at a New York City Department of Correction facility from December 5 through December 22, 2019, defendants failed to isolate detainees who had the flu from detainees who were asymptomatic or otherwise not ill. He alleged that he contracted the flu and later developed pneumonia.
Legal standard
The court treated the motion as one seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule permits relief from a final judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court explained that this is an extraordinary remedy and that reconsideration generally is not available simply to relitigate an issue already decided.
Because Lurch was representing himself, the court said it would read his complaint liberally and would consider his conditions-of-confinement theory. A conditions-of-confinement claim under the Fourteenth Amendment requires a plaintiff to show both an objectively serious deprivation and that the defendant acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. The court described the objective requirement as a condition that violates contemporary standards of decency and involves an extreme deprivation. For the subjective requirement, the plaintiff must show that officials knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to health or safety.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Lurch still failed to state a plausible conditions-of-confinement claim. It held that his allegations did not meet the required threshold for an objectively serious deprivation. The court noted that courts in the Second Circuit had treated headaches, sore throats, and other flu-like symptoms as insufficiently serious for constitutional protection, and stated that the flu is a common risk society tolerates.
The court also concluded that Lurch had not shown deliberate indifference by prison officials. It found that he presented no evidence that defendants acted intentionally or recklessly, and noted that the facility examined and treated him after he developed symptoms.
Disposition
The court denied Lurch’s motion for reconsideration. The conclusion states: “Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.” The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 40.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.