Lainez v. New York State Department of Corrections

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 7, 2019
Docket7:18-cv-06754
StatusUnknown

This text of Lainez v. New York State Department of Corrections (Lainez v. New York State Department of Corrections) 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
Lainez v. New York State Department of Corrections, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Opinion

ee USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED nance □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ DOC #i__ Tr ROGER LAINEZ, DATE FILED: Of 7 Plaintiff, : | DATE RIMM: Et OPINION AND ORDER AMY ROYCROFT, ASHLEY HARRIS- : BAKER, JEANETTE BARRET-WILSON, : 18 CV 6754 (VB) JULIO MARTINEZ, and STEPHANIE : O’SULLIVAN, : Defendants. : ) rm ~ eee ee eee ee ene nee □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ copie Maile? axed | □□□ | □ □ Chambers of Vincent L, Bricesst d H- Briccetti, J.: Plaintiff Roger Lainez, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Nurse Amy Roycroft, Physician’s Assistant Ashley Harris- Baker, Nurse Administrator Jeanette Barret-Wilson, Nurse Practitioner Julio Martinez, and Registered Nurse Stephanie O’Sullivan. Liberally construed, plaintiff's amended complaint asserts Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's medical needs at Woodburne Correctional Facility (“Woodburne”), | Now pending is defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. #21).

| Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on May 23, 2018. (Doc. #1). On November 6, 2018, after defense counsel identified several of plaintiff's medical providers pursuant to Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1997), the Court ordered plaintiff to amend his complaint and provide “the facts that give rise to his claims, including the dates, times, and places of the alleged underlying acts.” (Doc. #12). Thereafter, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. #13). The Court had instructed plaintiff that his amended complaint would replace rather than supplement his initial complaint. However, even liberally construing plaintiff's complaints together, he still fails to state a claim.

For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. However, plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint as to his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim in accordance with the instructions below. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1331. BACKGROUND For the purpose of ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well- pleaded factual allegations in the amended complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor, as set forth below. Initially, plaintiff was a convicted inmate housed at Woodburne, a prison operated by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Plaintiff alleges in October 2016, he felt lumps in his upper groin area and went to sick call to report the lumps. According to plaintiff, the medical professionals at Woodburne told him to use a hot damp towel to reduce swelling, but the treatment was ineffective, burned, and irritated him. Plaintiff claims he later returned to sick call and was given antibiotics to treat the lumps. According to plaintiff, the antibiotics were ineffective. Plaintiff alleges medical providers at Woodburne then doubled his dosage of antibiotics, but the treatment remained ineffective. On July 3, 2017, plaintiff was transferred from Woodburne to the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (“Buffalo FDF”). Plaintiff alleges he went to sick call at Buffalo FDF, where the medical staff referred him to an oncologist who later diagnosed plaintiff with follicular lymphoma. Following the diagnosis, plaintiff alleges he had surgery and twelve sessions of radiation therapy.

DISCUSSION L Standard of Review In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court evaluates the sufficiency of the operative complaint under the “two-pronged approach” articulated by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).” First, plaintiff's legal conclusions and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” are not entitled to the assumption of truth and are thus not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Id. at 678; Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 161 (2d Cir. 2010). Second, “[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the allegations in the complaint must meet a standard of “plausibility.” Ashcroft vy. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id, (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S, at 556). The Court must liberally construe submissions of pro se litigants and interpret them “to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir, 2006) (per curiam) (collecting cases). Applying the pleading rules permissively is particularly appropriate when, as here, a pro se plaintiff alleges civil rights

2 Unless otherwise indicated, case quotations omit all citations, internal quotation marks, footnotes, and alterations.

violations. See Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008). “Even in a pro se case, however, . . . threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010). Nor may the Court “invent factual allegations” a plaintiff has not pleaded. Id, Il. Eighth Amendment Claims Defendants argue plaintiff fails to state a claim for constitutionally inadequate medical care, The Court agrees, As an initial matter, plaintiff asserts deliberate indifference claims under both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Because plaintiff was a convicted prisoner when the events giving rise to his claim occurred, his claim arises under the Eighth Amendment not the Fourteenth. Caiozzo v. Koreman, 581 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 2009), overruled on other grounds by Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2017). A. Personal Involvement To adequately plead a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff “must plead that each Government- official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Furthermore, the complaint must “give each defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the ground upon which it rests.” Atuahene v. City of Hartford, 10 F. App’x 33, 34 (2d Cir, May 31, 2001) (summary order).? A plaintiff cannot “lump]] all the defendants together in each claim and provid[e] no factual basis to distinguish

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)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Chavis v. Chappius
618 F.3d 162 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Chance v. Armstrong
143 F.3d 698 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Caiozzo v. Koreman
581 F.3d 63 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Hayden v. Paterson
594 F.3d 150 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Farid v. Ellen
593 F.3d 233 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Lebron v. Sanders
557 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Sealed v. Sealed 1
537 F.3d 185 (Second Circuit, 2008)
Darnell v. City of New York
849 F.3d 17 (Second Circuit, 2017)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Matima v. Celli
228 F.3d 68 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Atuahene v. City of Hartford
10 F. App'x 33 (Second Circuit, 2001)
Salahuddin v. Goord
467 F.3d 263 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Sonds v. St. Barnabas Hospital Correctional Health Services
151 F. Supp. 2d 303 (S.D. New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lainez v. New York State Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lainez-v-new-york-state-department-of-corrections-nysd-2019.