Curry v. Kim

Background

Jerome Curry, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, sued Clinical Physician Kyoung S. Kim and Registered Nurse A. Simpson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that they violated the Eighth Amendment by delaying an X-ray of his right pointer finger after another inmate attacked him with a cane at Green Haven Correctional Facility on or about May 24, 2019.

Curry alleged that Simpson examined him the day of the attack and documented swelling in his right thumb and pointer finger. Curry said he reported that the pointer finger might be broken, that he was in pain, and that he could not bend it, but neither defendant ordered an X-ray of the finger. He alleged that he later developed a severe infection and underwent a procedure to drain fluid from the finger. After letters and sick-call visits, an X-ray was taken on June 17, 2019—24 days after the injury—and showed a fracture. Curry sought at least $550,000 in damages.

The Motion to Dismiss

Kim moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Although Simpson had not been served and did not join the motion, Kim argued that the motion’s reasoning applied equally to Simpson. The court considered the motion as to both defendants.

State-Law Claims

Curry did not specifically identify state-law claims. The court nevertheless considered whether the amended complaint could be read to assert them. It held that New York Correction Law § 24 barred damages claims under New York law against the defendants for acts or omissions within the scope of their employment. The court therefore dismissed Curry’s claims under New York law for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Official-Capacity Claims

To the extent Curry sought relief under § 1983 against Kim and Simpson in their official capacities, the court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred those claims. The court stated that New York had not waived its immunity from § 1983 lawsuits and that Congress had not removed that immunity. The court dismissed the official-capacity claims under Rule 12(b)(1), while noting that this ruling did not affect the § 1983 claims against the defendants in their individual capacities.

Individual-Capacity Eighth Amendment Claim

The court treated Curry’s remaining claim as an Eighth Amendment claim alleging deliberate indifference to inadequate medical care. Deliberate indifference requires allegations showing both an objectively serious medical need and that the defendant acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind—meaning more than negligence or medical malpractice.

The court relied on Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain’s analysis in an earlier order in this case, which had found that Curry’s original allegations did not suggest deliberate indifference and had allowed him to amend. In his amended complaint, Curry added allegations that he complained about pain, swelling, inability to bend the finger, and his belief that it was broken. He also alleged that the delay caused or contributed to an infection, swelling, and surgery without anesthesia.

Even accepting the new allegations and drawing reasonable inferences in Curry’s favor, Judge Halpern held that they did not plausibly show that Kim and Simpson knew of and ignored a substantial risk of serious harm. The court characterized the alleged failure to order an X-ray as a challenge to medical judgment that, at most, suggested negligence. Because Curry did not adequately allege the required mental state, the court dismissed the individual-capacity deliberate-indifference claim. The court expressly did not decide whether Curry adequately alleged an objectively serious medical need because the subjective part of the test was not satisfied.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to Kim and Simpson. It denied leave to file a second amended complaint, concluding that another amendment would be futile because Curry had already amended once. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions, close the case, and mail Curry a copy of the opinion and order.