Thompson v. N.Y. State Corrs. & Cmty. Supervision
| Decision Date | 28 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 22-CV-6307-FPG |
| Parties | GARNELL THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION; C. YEHL, Superintendent; L. URBAN, Deputy Superintendent for Program Services, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Pro se Plaintiff Garnell Thompson is a prisoner confined at the Wende Correctional Facility (“Wende”). He filed a Complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”); C. Yehl Superintendent of Wende (“Superintendent Yehl”) and L. Urban, Deputy Superintendent for Program Services at Wende (“DSP Urban”) (collectively “Defendants”) acted with deliberate indifference in revoking certain reasonable accommodations for his poor vision he previously had been granted. ECF No. 1 at 4 ¶¶ 14-16. Plaintiff also has filed a motion a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 7; a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No.4; a Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 5; and a Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 14.
For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against DOCCS and against Superintendent Yehl and DSP Urban in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and are dismissed with prejudice. The Court further finds that the Complaint plausibly states an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against DSP Urban in his individual capacity and will allow that claim to proceed to service.
However, the Complaint does not plausibly allege Superintendent Yehl's personal involvement in a constitutional violation and therefore the Eighth Amendment claim against him in his individual capacity is dismissed with prejudice. Because the Complaint is ambiguous as to whether Plaintiff is pursuing Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against several medical defendants at Wende, he will be afforded an opportunity to file an amended complaint to allege such claims. The Court further concludes that the Complaint plausibly states claims based on the denial of reasonable accommodations under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq.; and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 504, 29 U.S.C. § 749(a), et seq. These claims will be allowed to proceed against DOCCS and against Superintendent Yehl and DSP Urban in their official capacities only, since individual capacity suits are barred under both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Finally, to the extent the Complaint asserts Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against DOCCS, and against Superintendent Yehl and DSP Urban in their individual and official capacities, the Court dismisses all such claims without leave to replead.
Plaintiff has met the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and has filed a properly supported Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 7, along with the required Inmate Authorization Form, ECF No. 3. Accordingly the Court grants Plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, the Court must screen the Complaint.
Sections 1915 and 1915A “provide an efficient means by which a court can screen for and dismiss legally insufficient claims.” Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106 112 (2d Cir. 2004)). The court shall dismiss a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity, or an officer or employee of a governmental entity, if the court determines that the action (1) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or (2) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B) ().
Generally, the court will afford a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend or to be heard prior to dismissal “unless the court can rule out any possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would succeed in stating a claim.” Abbas, 480 F.3d at 639. But leave to amend pleadings may be denied when any amendment would be futile. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) () (citation omitted).
In evaluating Plaintiff's complaint, the Court must accept all factual allegations as true and must draw all inferences in his favor. See Larkin v. Savage, 318 F.3d 138, 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam). “Specific facts are not necessary,” and the plaintiff “need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); see also Boykin v. Keycorp, 521 F.3d 202, 216 (2d Cir. 2008) (). Although “a court is obliged to construe [pro se] pleadings liberally, particularly when they allege civil rights violations,” McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004), even pleadings submitted pro se must meet the notice requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 79 n.11 (2d Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff has been in DOCCS custody since 2006. ECF No.1 ¶ 12. On December 18, 2020, he was approved for certain reasonable accommodations because he is legally blind and suffers from glaucoma. Id. ¶ 24. As a result of his visual impairments, Plaintiff asserts, he experiences vertigo, dizziness, and serious mobility issues, making him a fall risk. Id. ¶ 20.
At some point in time, he was transferred from the Elmira Correctional Facility to Wende. When he arrived at Wende, C. Ewing, an instructor of the blind who is not a party to this action, told Plaintiff that he had to reapply for the reasonable accommodations he previously had been granted. Id. ¶¶ 3, 24.
In August of 2021, Ewing provided Plaintiff with the following reasonable accommodations to help him see, walk, read, and write: a guidance cane, sunglasses, a magnifier, a lamp, a cassette player, some “20/20 pens”, and writing papers. Id. ¶ 14.
On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff was examined by an unidentified eye doctor at Wende. Id. ¶ 15. Following that examination, certain unidentified “Wende Prison Medical Personnel” “downgraded” Plaintiff's visual impairment and failed to provide him with corrective lenses that had been prescribed by the eye doctor. Id.
On October 5, 2021, Ewing notified Plaintiff that, as a result of his visual impairment being reclassified at a less severe level, he had to return the reasonable accommodations provided to him in August of 2021. Id. ¶ 16. Ewing subsequently ordered the removal of the reasonable accommodations from Plaintiff's cell. Id.
Plaintiff wrote a complaint letter to non-party Nurse Administrator-1 K. Gugino (“Nurse Administrator Gugino”), accusing unidentified “medical personnel” at Wende of deliberate indifference to his health and safety based on the downgrading of his visual impairment. Id. ¶ 17.
Nurse Administrator Gugino responded that, based upon her review of his medical records, “no deliberate indifference was shown [to him] by staff. . . .” Id.
On November 30, 2021, after not receiving his prescribed corrective lenses, Plaintiff filed a request with DSP Urban for reasonable accommodations, including a support cane, visor/sunglasses, magnifiers, “CCTV”, cassette player and cassettes, and “large print.” Id. ¶ 18. DSP Urban denied his application on January 27, 2022. Id.
Plaintiff filed a grievance challenging DSP Urban's decision, and a superintendent's hearing was conducted on January 28, 2022. Id. ¶ 19. DSP Urban refused Plaintiff's request for an assistant during the hearing. Id. Plaintiff explained to DSP Urban that without the reasonable accommodations he previously had been provided, he could not see or walk properly. Id. In addition, Plaintiff informed DSP Urban that he was in violation of DOCCS “Directive 2614(VIII)(B)” by not providing him the corrective lenses within seven days. DSP Urban responded that Wende “does not follow Directive 2614(VIII)(B).” Id. Frustrated, Plaintiff left the hearing. Id. A few days later, DSP Urban affirmed the denial of Plaintiff's request for reasonable accommodations. Id.
Plaintiff pursued a grievance, alleging “deliberate indifference” by “DOCCS[,] its employees, agents[,] and servants” because they “improperly modified reasonable accommodations he had been medically verified for” and “were disobeying doctor's orders showing deliberate indifference to his health and safety,” since he was severely visually impaired, legally blind, suffering from v[e]rtigo, dizziness, serious mobility issues, and was a fall risk.” Id. ¶ 20. The grievance was denied at all levels of review.
Because reasonable accommodations have been withheld from him, Plaintiff has been denied access to exercise, yard, gym, showers, the law library, and other unspecified programs, services, and activities. Id. ¶ 23. At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff had been without the corrective lenses prescribed by the eye doctor for over six months. He suffers “extreme” pain on a “daily” basis from bumping into walls, falling down flights of stairs, and tripping over objects. Id. ¶ 26.
“To state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial