Cox v. Morley

Background

Sampson Cox, who was incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility and represented himself, sued three medical staff members—Dr. Mikhail Gusman, Nurse Abigail Yerkes, and Nurse Judith Ann Camara—and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute allowing claims against state actors for constitutional violations.

Cox alleged that he had skin problems and other medical symptoms, and that the defendants refused to examine him or provide adequate treatment. He asserted claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and failure to protect under the Eighth Amendment, as well as procedural and substantive due-process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Procedural Rulings

The court noted that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision had not been served. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the court dismissed the action as to that defendant for failure to serve. The opinion explains that Rule 4(m) requires dismissal without prejudice when a defendant is not timely served, but the court’s specific statement concerning that defendant says only that the action was dismissed for failure to serve.

The remaining defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Cox did not file opposition papers.

Eighth Amendment Medical-Care Claim

The court held that Cox did not adequately plead deliberate indifference to medical needs. Such a claim requires an objectively serious medical need and a defendant’s deliberate indifference to that need.

The court relied on medical records and grievances incorporated into the amended complaint. Those materials indicated that Cox had been seen by medical staff more than 25 times, that Dr. Gusman performed multiple examinations and prescribed medication for skin irritation and high blood pressure, and that Cox continued receiving medical attention after the alleged statements by the nurses. The court concluded that Cox’s allegations reflected dissatisfaction or disagreement with the course of treatment, not a plausible claim that he was denied medical care or that the treatment was constitutionally inadequate.

The court dismissed this claim for failure to state a claim. Because Cox had previously been given an opportunity to amend the claim, the court stated that the dismissal was with prejudice.

Eighth Amendment Failure-to-Protect Claim

The court held that Cox’s failure-to-protect claim was based on the same facts as his medical-care claim and was therefore duplicative. The court dismissed this claim with prejudice because Cox had previously been given an opportunity to amend it.

Fourteenth Amendment Claims

The court dismissed Cox’s procedural due-process claim with prejudice because he did not identify a protected property interest or explain how the defendants failed to provide constitutionally sufficient process.

The court also dismissed Cox’s substantive due-process claim with prejudice. Cox did not identify a protected property interest, explain how the defendants’ actions were shocking, arbitrary, or egregious, or provide specific allegations supporting the claim. In addition, the court ruled that the Eighth Amendment—not the more general substantive-due-process doctrine—was the proper constitutional basis for allegations concerning medical mistreatment.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The conclusion states that all claims were dismissed with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case, and stated that the court did not reach the defendants’ qualified-immunity argument because all of Cox’s claims had been dismissed.