Labossiere v. Montefiore Hospital (Mount Vernon)

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 3, 2022
Docket7:21-cv-10541
StatusUnknown

This text of Labossiere v. Montefiore Hospital (Mount Vernon) (Labossiere v. Montefiore Hospital (Mount Vernon)) 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
Labossiere v. Montefiore Hospital (Mount Vernon), (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WILFRED LABOSSIERE, Plaintiff, 21-CV-10541 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND MONTEFIORE HOSPITAL (MOUNT VERNON), ET AL., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in Downstate Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. He sues Montefiore Hospital, St. Luke’s Hospital, Downstate Correctional Facility, two John/Jane Doe officers, two John/Jane Doe nurses, and two John/Jane doctors. By order dated December 16, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty 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 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

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). 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. The Supreme Court has held that, under Rule 8, a complaint must 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 Plaintiff brings this action regarding events that occurred at Montefiore Hospital, St. Luke’s Hospital, and Downstate Correctional Facility (Downstate) between June 29, 2019, and July 19, 2019. The following allegations are taken from the complaint. Plaintiff was “discharged from [the] Hospital without proper[] observation after s[u]rgery which resulted in [an] ER trip from Downstate Correctional Fac to St. Lukes for cath[e]ter drain of bla[dd]er of 700cc of urine and three en[em]a flush[es] while still shackled.” (ECF 2, at 3.) After returning to Downstate, Plaintiff received two catheter drains a day for two days before getting a permanent catheter

installed. The permanent catheter then “began to bleed and came out after a day causing pain and bleeding.” (Id.) The night nurse did not “have proper gloves” to reinstall the catheter so Plaintiff had to “wait for the next shift” to have another permanent catheter installed. (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that he “received inapprop[ria]te accusations” and “mal treatment,” and that he was discharged from “Downstate Correction Medical without doctors con[s]ent.” (Id.) Plaintiff attaches a copy of an “inmate grievance complaint,” which is difficult to understand, but it includes additional details about the allegations in the complaint. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff told nurse “Tom” that he was having pain in his penis from the catheter. Tom responded that the pain was normal, and officer “‘McMann’ interjected explaining that [Plaintiff]

may be attempting to show [his] Dick [which] would be considered disrespectful.” (Id. at 8.) When Plaintiff was at the ER at St. Luke’s, hospital staff “pulled [his] pants down and performed a straight catheter drain of [his] bladder producing 700cc of urine,” which Plaintiff maintains is “more than two times the normal limit.” (Id.) Upon returning to “Downstate Correctional Facility hospital,” Plaintiff was placed in an “isolation room” where he had “two painful straight catheter drains” of his bladder “by both male and female medical staff with male and female officers in full view of [Plaintiff’s] private parts.” (Id.) On an unspecified date, Plaintiff awoke in pain and bleeding. A male nurse attempted to replace Plaintiff’s catheter, but Plaintiff refused when he realized that the nurse was not wearing sterile gloves. The nurse explained that he did not have the right size gloves. The next morning, a different nurse reinstalled the catheter. Plaintiff also alleges that the air-conditioning “never worked,” causing him to “sit in excessive heat and repeatedly take showers to keep the surgical area clean from irritation from sweat.” (Id. at 9.) On July 14, 2019, officer Cook told Plaintiff that Plaintiff was being discharged, although

Plaintiff believed he would remain in this hospital for at least another day. Plaintiff nevertheless “followed the officers[’] orders and returned to [his] cell block.” (Id.) The grievance is unclear, but Plaintiff appears to allege that officer Cook took Plaintiff back to the hospital later that night to get his medication, but because there was no medication for Plaintiff, “nurse ‘Tom’ appeared sneaking [t]o hand [Plaintiff] two pill bottles with [his] meds and told [Plaintiff] ‘Good Luck.’” (Id.) On July 15, 2019, Plaintiff saw physician’s assistant Miss Yemi, who checked Plaintiff’s file and told him that he was “discharged without doctor[‘s] con[s]ent.” (Id.

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)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Hathaway v. Coughlin
99 F.3d 550 (Second Circuit, 1996)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Darnell v. City of New York
849 F.3d 17 (Second Circuit, 2017)
Tangreti v. Bachmann
983 F.3d 609 (Second Circuit, 2020)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Labossiere v. Montefiore Hospital (Mount Vernon), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/labossiere-v-montefiore-hospital-mount-vernon-nysd-2022.