Curry v. Kim

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 11, 2022
Docket7:22-cv-04127
StatusUnknown

This text of Curry v. Kim (Curry v. Kim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Curry v. Kim, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JEROME CURRY, Plaintiff, 22-CV-4127 (LTS) -against- KYOUNG S. KIM, CLIINICAL PHYSICIAN; ORDER TO AMEND A. SIMPSON, REGISTERED NURSE, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in Green Haven Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action, alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Because Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights, the Court construes his claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names as Defendants Dr. Kyooung S. Kim and Registered Nurse A. Simpson, both of whom were employed at Green Haven Correctional Facility at the time of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims. By order dated May 25, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s IFP

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to include enough

facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND The following allegations are taken from the complaint. On or about May 24, 2019, Plaintiff was attacked with a cane by another inmate. On the same day, Plaintiff was taken to the facility’s clinic, where he was examined by Defendant Simpson. After completing the physical examination, Simpson prepared an Inmate Injury Report in which “she reported that plaintiff

suffered a 5 centimeter lump to the left fore head near the eye, with an open 3 centimeter superficial scrape to the left fore[arm], with a swollen right thumb and right pointer finger.” (ECF 2, at 3.) Despite mentioning in the report the visible swelling of Plaintiff’s right thumb and pointer finger, Defendants failed to order x-rays of those fingers. They instead ordered x-rays of the left side of Plaintiff’s head and face, the site of the injuries near his eye. On May 31, 2019, Plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure on his right pointer finger, which he maintains was infected and swelling, to drain accumulated fluids. Plaintiff states that, “[d]ue to the severe infection and swelling this surgical procedure was performed without anesthesia.” (Id. at 3.) Finally, “nearly a month after the injury,” an x-ray was taken of Plaintiff’s right pointer

finger which showed that the finger was fractured. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that by “ignoring the obvious and visible injury to his right pointer finger,” Defendants failed to provide him with adequate treatment and that their delay in treating his finger caused infection and swelling. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that he “was left to suffer from a serious infection which caused extreme pain, and prevented plaintiff from sleeping due to the chronic and substantial pain for approximately one month.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks money damages in an amount no less than $550,000. (Id. at 4-5.) DISCUSSION Because Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights, the Court construes the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color

of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). A. Inadequate Medical Care To state a Section 1983 claim for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that correction officials were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s serious medical condition. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976); Caiozzo v. Koreman, 581 F.3d 63, 69-72 (2d Cir. 2009). Deliberate indifference claims include an objective component and a subjective component. Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2011).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Rhodes v. Chapman
452 U.S. 337 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Youngberg v. Romeo Ex Rel. Romeo
457 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1982)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Bennie Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
877 F.2d 170 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Caiozzo v. Koreman
581 F.3d 63 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Harding v. Kuhlmann
588 F. Supp. 1315 (S.D. New York, 1984)
Darnell v. City of New York
849 F.3d 17 (Second Circuit, 2017)
Charles v. Orange County
925 F.3d 73 (Second Circuit, 2019)
Hathaway v. Coughlin
99 F.3d 550 (Second Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Curry v. Kim, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-kim-nysd-2022.