White v. Ezekwe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-04451
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In White v. Ezekwe, Judge Halpern granted dismissal of White’s medical and religious-rights claims with prejudice.
Frank W. White Jr.’s claims against Felix Ikeshukwu Ezekwe were dismissed with prejudice; the opinion had previously dismissed White’s claims against Razia Ferdous.
What happened
In White v. Ezekwe, Frank W. White Jr., representing himself, alleged that Felix Ikeshukwu Ezekwe provided inadequate medical care for a scalp condition while White was incarcerated. White said prescribed shampoos caused burning, headaches, and the loss of his dreadlocks, which he had grown as part of his Rastafarian religion.
The court considered White’s claims that Ezekwe delayed or inadequately treated his condition under the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. It also considered White’s claim that losing his dreadlocks violated his religious freedom. The court concluded that the alleged scalp problems were not serious enough for a medical-care claim and that the allegations showed, at most, negligence or a disagreement about treatment. It also concluded that medical treatment served a legitimate prison purpose and that White did not allege Ezekwe knew the dreadlocks had religious significance.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted Ezekwe’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissed White’s claims with prejudice, denied permission to appeal without paying fees, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- White v. Ezekwe · No. 7:22-cv-04451
- Philip Halpern
- Dec. 11, 2023
Background
Frank W. White Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, sued Felix Ikeshukwu Ezekwe and Razia Ferdous under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on events during White’s incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. An earlier order dismissed all claims against Ferdous, leaving Ezekwe as the remaining defendant.
White alleged that Ezekwe treated a scalp rash with black tar shampoo on April 30, 2019. White continued visiting the medical unit and reported that the shampoo burned his scalp. On May 31, 2019, Ezekwe prescribed selenium sulfide shampoo. White alleged that the new shampoo immediately caused burning and that his dreadlocks came away at the roots. Correctional staff took him to Westchester Medical Center, where a physician diagnosed a fungal scalp infection irritated by medicated shampoo. White later saw a dermatologist and received additional treatment. He alleged that he experienced burning and peeling, headaches, and loss of dreadlocks that he had grown for more than 10 years as part of his Rastafarian religion.
Ezekwe moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. White opposed the motion.
Claims and legal standards
The court construed the complaint as asserting two medical-care claims under the Eighth Amendment: that Ezekwe delayed treatment for White’s fungal infection and that Ezekwe inadequately treated the condition with medicated shampoo. The court also considered a First Amendment religious-freedom claim based on the loss of White’s dreadlocks.
For an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim, a prisoner must allege both an objectively serious medical need and that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference—meaning the defendant was actually aware of a substantial risk of serious harm and failed to act appropriately. Negligence, medical malpractice, or a disagreement about the proper treatment is not enough for an Eighth Amendment violation.
For a prisoner’s religious-freedom claim, the court examines whether the practice is religious and sincerely held, whether prison officials’ conduct burdened it, and whether the conduct furthered legitimate prison objectives. The court also stated that individual liability requires at least deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s religious practice.
Analysis
The court held that White’s alleged scalp condition, hair loss, itching, burning, headaches, and related problems did not satisfy the objective requirement for an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim. White did not allege that the condition significantly affected his daily activities or caused chronic and substantial pain.
The court further held that, even if White had alleged a serious medical condition, the complaint did not show deliberate indifference. According to the allegations, Ezekwe assessed the condition, prescribed one medicated shampoo, prescribed a different shampoo after White reported burning, and arranged or ordered further medical treatment after the condition worsened. The court found that the allegations showed, at most, negligence or a difference of opinion about treatment, neither of which supports an Eighth Amendment claim.
As to the First Amendment claim, the court accepted for purposes of the motion that White had alleged a sincere religious belief and that losing his dreadlocks burdened that belief. But it held that providing medical treatment was a legitimate prison objective. The court also found that White did not allege Ezekwe knew about White’s Rastafarian beliefs or knew that White maintained dreadlocks for religious reasons. The court therefore concluded that the alleged conduct amounted at most to negligence, which was insufficient for a First Amendment claim.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted Ezekwe’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims alleged in White’s complaint with prejudice because it found that amendment would be futile. The court did not address Ezekwe’s qualified-immunity argument. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion, close the case, and mail White a copy of the opinion and order.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.