Carter v. Akinyombo

Background

James Anthony Carter Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, sued Deputy Superintendent of Health Services A. Akinyombo, Nurse Practitioners K. Ngbodi and M. Baby (also known as “Thomas”), and Registered Nurse Michelle Centanni. The complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Eighth Amendment, alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs during Carter’s incarceration at Fishkill Correctional Facility. Carter also asserted a claim against Akinyombo under the Americans with Disabilities Act and sought $5,500,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

Carter alleged that he developed severe degenerative osteoarthritis in his left hip, experienced extreme and continuing pain, and was repeatedly told that hip-replacement surgery was the only treatment that would correct the condition. He alleged that Ngbodi refused to request an orthopedic consultation despite knowing that surgery was necessary. Other providers later arranged consultations and scheduled surgery, but the surgery was delayed and ultimately did not occur until after Carter’s release from custody. Carter alleged that the delay worsened his condition and that he continued to experience pain, use a cane, and walk with a limp.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and viewed them in Carter’s favor, while requiring facts that made liability plausible rather than merely possible.

The court reconsidered its earlier analysis of Carter’s Second Amended Complaint. It concluded that the earlier ruling had failed to consider Carter’s allegations concerning the eighteen months before his first orthopedic appointment. The court determined that relying on the earlier analysis without considering those allegations would create a clear legal error and potential injustice.

Eighth Amendment Claims

To state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim, a prisoner must plausibly allege both an objectively serious deprivation of medical care and that the defendant knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm.

Ngbodi. The court held that Carter plausibly stated a claim against Ngbodi. According to the complaint, Ngbodi knew Carter had degenerative osteoarthritis, knew he was experiencing severe pain, and knew that hip-replacement surgery was the only appropriate treatment. Carter also alleged that Ngbodi expressly refused to request an orthopedic consultation regardless of how much he complained. The court concluded that these allegations plausibly showed that Ngbodi impeded access to necessary treatment. The Section 1983 claim against Ngbodi may proceed, and the court declined to dismiss her on qualified-immunity grounds at this stage.

Thomas. The court concluded that Carter did not plausibly allege deliberate indifference by Thomas. Although Thomas allegedly knew surgery was necessary, communicated with “Albany,” told Carter to wait, continued pain medication, and did not ensure that the surgery was rescheduled sooner, the court found that these allegations showed inadequate advocacy or a difference in medical judgment rather than deliberate disregard of a serious risk. The court also noted that Carter did not allege that Thomas controlled the surgery schedule or prevented access to treatment. The claim against Thomas was dismissed without prejudice.

Akinyombo. The court concluded that Carter did not plausibly allege deliberate indifference by Akinyombo. Akinyombo allegedly raised the priority of Carter’s surgery, discussed accommodations and relocation, and told Carter he had to wait for Dr. Holder’s availability. The court found that Carter did not allege Akinyombo controlled the scheduling factors, including the doctor’s schedule, hospital-bed availability, or the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court viewed the alleged failure to arrange a transfer or find another surgeon as, at most, inadequate advocacy on the facts pleaded. The Eighth Amendment claim against Akinyombo was dismissed without prejudice.

Centanni. The court concluded that Carter did not plausibly allege deliberate indifference by Centanni. The complaint did not clearly establish that Centanni was responsible for approving outside consultations or surgery, knew the relevant facts about Carter’s condition, or caused the cancellation or later delay of surgery. The court found Carter’s allegations about Centanni’s involvement speculative and dismissed the claim without prejudice.

Americans with Disabilities Act Claim

Carter alleged that Akinyombo denied accommodations needed because of the pain caused by his hip condition and sought only monetary damages. The court stated that the claim was barred whether Akinyombo was sued in an individual or official capacity: the disability statute did not permit an individual-capacity damages claim against a state official, and the Eleventh Amendment barred the official-capacity damages claim against the State of New York. The court dismissed the ADA claim against Akinyombo with prejudice.

The court also denied Carter leave to add Fishkill Correctional Facility as a new ADA defendant. It concluded that the facility had no separate legal status from the state agency operating it and therefore could not be sued as a separate entity. Because Carter was no longer incarcerated and sought monetary damages, the court found that amendment of the ADA claims would be futile and again denied leave to amend those claims.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. Carter’s Section 1983 claim against Ngbodi may proceed. His Section 1983 claims against Thomas, Akinyombo, and Centanni were dismissed without prejudice, and he was granted leave to replead those claims. His ADA claim against Akinyombo was dismissed with prejudice, and he was not granted leave to assert an ADA claim against Fishkill. The court set November 13, 2023, as the deadline for filing a Fourth Amended Complaint.