Kucharczyk v. Westchester Cnty.

• Decision Date: 26 March 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–CV–601 KMK.,14–CV–601 KMK.
• Citation: 95 F.Supp.3d 529
• Parties: Louis KUCHARCZYK, Plaintiff, v. WESTCHESTER COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

95 F.Supp.3d 529

Louis KUCHARCZYK, Plaintiff

v.WESTCHESTER COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

No. 14–CV–601 KMK.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed March 26, 2015.

Louis Kucharczyk, Valhalla, NY, pro se.

John Martin Murtagh, Jr., Esq., Jaazaniah Asahguii, Esq., Gaines, Novick, Ponzini, Cossu & Venditti, LLP, White Plains, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:

Pro se Plaintiff Louis Kucharczyk (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Westchester County, Correct Care Solutions LLC, Correct Care Solutions New York, Dr. Ulloa (“Dr. Ulloa”), N.P. Linda Beyer (“Beyer”), Medical Liaison June Yozzo (“Yozzo”), Nurse Michael Kelly (“Kelly”), and N.P. Tufaro (“Tufaro”) (collectively “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Compl. ¶ II.D (Dkt. No. 2).) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of deliberate indifference to inmates' medical needs. (Id. ) Before the Court is Defendants' Motion To Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See Mot. To Dismiss (“Mot.”) (Dkt. No. 13).) For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is denied.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff's Complaint and the documents attached thereto and are taken as true for the purpose of resolving the instant Motion. Plaintiff was an inmate at Westchester County Jail (“WCJ”). (Compl. ¶ I.A.) On February 28, 2012, Plaintiff arrived at WCJ after his discharge from Lawrence Hospital in Bronxville, where he was treated for injuries related to a car accident prior to his arrest. (Id. ¶ II.D.) When he arrived, an intake nurse in the booking department interviewed Plaintiff, and Plaintiff notified her of severe pain in his lower abdomen area. (Id. ) The nurse told Plaintiff to write a “sick call” when he arrived at his assigned housing unit and she did not offer Plaintiff medication for his pain. (Id. ) When he arrived at his housing unit, Plaintiff wrote to the “sick call department about [the] severe pain in his groin area,” and Plaintiff “was determined to possibl[y] have a hernia

[and] was to be seen by a surgeon.” (Id. ) Plaintiff was not, however, seen by a surgeon, and accordingly he wrote approximately 15 to 20 “sick calls,” notifying the “sick call department” of his severe pain. (Id. )

In or around June 2012, Plaintiff saw a surgeon, who determined that Plaintiff needed surgery to prevent the further expansion of two growing hernias

located in his groin area, and Plaintiff was approved for the required surgery. (Id. ) Plaintiff wrote several “sick calls” from June through July 2012 to “investigate the status” of his surgery. (Id. ) Because of Plaintiff's severe pain, Beyer saw Plaintiff in June or July 2012, and she told Plaintiff to “stop crying” and that she would “give [him a] belt for [the] hernia [and] if the hernia c[a]me[ ] out in a bulge [he should] just push it back in.” (Id. ) Beyer did not offer Plaintiff any medication to relieve his pain. (Id. ) Plaintiff continued to follow-up through the “sick call procedure to investigate the status of his scheduled [hernia ] operation.” (Id. )

Tufaro called Plaintiff to the “sick call area” and Plaintiff explained that he was in severe pain and inquired about the status of his operation. (Id. ) Tufaro told Plaintiff that he did not know when he would be called for surgery, and if the hernia

“pop[ped] out[,] [he should] just push it back in [and he would] be ok[ay].” (Id. ) Tufaro also instructed Plaintiff to write to Yozzo. (Id. ) Plaintiff wrote to Yozzo to inform her of his pain and the delay in his surgery. (Id. ) When Plaintiff received no response from Yozzo, he submitted a grievance to Sergeant Coletti (“Coletti”). (Id. ) Coletti refused to accept Plaintiff's grievance, stating that “we are not medical” and instructed Plaintiff to “mail the grievance to medical.” (Id. ) In or around August 2012, Plaintiff attempted to submit the grievance to Sergeant Omess (“Omess”), who told Plaintiff that he was “wasting [his] time.” (Id. )

Plaintiff then wrote to Kelly, complaining about his pain and the delay of his approved surgery. (Id. ) Kelly did not respond. (Id. ) Yozzo “finally came to [Plaintiff's] housing unit” and informed Plaintiff that she spoke with Dr. Ulloa, the surgery was not going to take place because Plaintiff's injuries were not life threatening, and that he would have to wait until he was transferred to the “New York State prisons or released.” (Id. ) Plaintiff explained to Yozzo that he was in severe pain and was at risk for further injury, but she ignored his request for help. (Id. ) As of the date of the instant Complaint, Plaintiff has not been offered “any sort of relief except [for] a hernia belt

[,] which is not helpful.” (Id. )

Plaintiff alleges that due to Defendants' conduct he has experienced severe pain, depression, and anxiety, and his hernia

has expanded. (Id. ¶ III.) He states that he tried to file grievances, but the “correctional supervisors refused to accept [the grievances], stating [that the issues were] medical [,] not us.” (Id. ¶ IV.F.) Plaintiff claims that he wrote complaints to Kelly and Yozzo, the Westchester County Attorney Robert Meehan, and “the [C]ivil [R]ights [U]nit at 86 [C]hambers [Street]” in New York. (Id. ¶ IV.G.) Plaintiff requests damages for his pain and suffering. (Id. ¶ V.)

Plaintiff attaches a report to the Complaint from the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) dated November 19, 2009 (the “DOJ Report”). (Compl. Ex. 12.) The DOJ Report was completed after the DOJ conducted an on-site inspection at WCJ from February 25–28, 2008 as part of an investigation of WCJ, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (“CRIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. (Id. at 1.) The DOJ Report found, among other deficiencies, that WCJ “ha[d] a pattern of failing to ... provide inmates with adequate medical ... care,” which “violate[d] WCJ inmates' constitutional rights.” (Id. at 7.) As relevant here, the DOJ Report concluded that “[a]lthough WCJ has instituted a policy for submitting grievances, it is not consistently implemented or effectively publicized,” which posed a risk to inmates that perceived that their serious health needs were being unmet. (Id. at 23.)

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 27, 2014, alleging that Defendants deprived him of medical care and that Westchester County has a pattern and practice of denying inmates adequate medical care. (Dkt. No. 2.) The Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis on February 4, 2014. (Dkt. No. 3.) Pursuant to a scheduling order adopted at a pre-motion conference held before the Court on May 16, 2014, (Dkt. No. 12), Defendants filed their Motion To Dismiss and supporting papers on July 1, 2014, (Dkt. Nos. 13–16). Plaintiff did not submit papers in opposition to the Motion.

II. Discussion

A. Applicable Law

1. Standard of Review

The Supreme Court has held that although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations” to survive a motion to dismiss, “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his [or her] ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (second alteration in original) (citations omitted). Instead, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” id., and that “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint,” id. at 563, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A plaintiff must allege “only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. But if a plaintiff has “not nudged [his or her] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, the[ ] complaint must be dismissed.” Id.; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show [n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) )).

For the purposes of Defendants' Motion To Dismiss, the Court is required to consider as true the factual allegations contained in the Complaint. See Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir.2008) (“We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), accepting all factual allegations in the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Gonzalez v. Caballero, 572 F.Supp.2d 463, 466 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (same). “In adjudicating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court must confine its consideration to facts stated on the face of the complaint, in documents appended to the complaint or incorporated in the complaint by reference, and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken.”Leonard F. v. Isr. Disc. Bank of N.Y., 199 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the “failure to oppose [Defendants'] [M]otion [T]o [D]ismiss does not, by itself, require the dismissal of [Plaintiff's] claims.” Leach v. City of New York, No. 12–CV–2141, 2013 WL 1683668, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2013). Rather, even though “a party is of course to be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to an...