Upson v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 11 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 9:18-CV-1149 (LEK/CFH) |
| Parties | JAMEL UPSON, Plaintiff, v. GERALDINE WILSON and ELIZABETH WHITE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
JAMEL UPSON
Plaintiff, pro se
HON LETITIA JAMES AMANDA K. KURYLUK, ESQ.
New York State Attorney General Assistant Attorney General
Attorney for Defendants
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER [1]
Plaintiff pro se Jamel Upson ("Upson" or "Plaintiff"), who was, at all relevant times, in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") at Upstate Correctional Facility ("Upstate C.F."), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Nurse Geraldine Wilson ("Wilson") and Nurse Elizabeth White ("White") for violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."). Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 59. Upson opposed the motion, and Defendants replied. Dkt. Nos. 67, 68 and 70. For the following reasons, it is recommended that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted.
In support of the motion, Defendants filed a Statement of Material Facts.[3] Dkt. No. 59- 1. Upson responded to the Statement of Material Facts.[4] Dkt. No. 70 at pp. 12-16.[5] The facts recited are for the relevant time period as referenced in the Complaint and are related herein in the light most favorable to Upson as the nonmoving party. See subsection II(A) infra.
In 2012 and 2013, while confined at Clinton Correctional Facility and Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Upson was hospitalized on three separate occasions for treatment for bowel obstructions. Dkt. No. 59-5 at 19-27. Defendants were not involved in that treatment and were not employed at those facilities. Id. at 19-27, 29. From 2013 until April 30, 2015, Plaintiff did not suffer from any bowel obstructions. Id. at 28-29.
On April 30, 2015, Plaintiff was confined to a Special Housing Unit ("SHU") cell at Upstate C.F. Dkt. No. 59-5 at 13. Plaintiff's cell door was solid, with a window. Id. at 16. Plaintiff was aware of the sick call procedures at Upstate C.F. and had requested sick call prior to April 2015. Id. at 15-17.
On April 30, 2015, before the 6:00 p.m. medical run, Upson told Corrections Officer Woods that he was suffering from excruciating stomach pain and vomiting and asked to see a nurse. Dkt. No. 59-5 at 30; Dkt. No. 70-1 at 42 . Approximately thirty minutes later, defendant Wilson responded to Plaintiff's cell. Dkt. No. 59-5 at 31. Wilson came to the door, yelled at Upson, and asked "what's wrong with you? Id. at 32. Wilson told Plaintiff, and warned "this better be an emergency." Id. Wilson ordered Upson to turn on his cell light. Id. at 34. Upson admits he did not turn on his light and testified that he could not get off of his bed due to his abdominal pains however, he did not recall saying anything to Wilson in response to her request. Dkt. No. 59-5 at 34. Upson told Wilson to "calm down," and she "walked off." Id. at 32-33. The entire encounter was thirty seconds long.[6] Id. at 33.
At 7:20 p.m., in response to Plaintiff's "emergency sick call" request, Wilson asked an officer to escort Upson to the nurses' office for an evaluation. Dkt. No. 59-2 at ¶ 12; Dkt. No. 59-5 at 37. Plaintiff walked to the office, which was "downstairs" and "several feet" from his cell. Dkt. No. 59-5 at 37-38. During the evaluation, Wilson took Plaintiff's blood pressure, pulse, and temperature, asked about his symptoms, inquired about his bowel movements, and physically examined his abdomen. Id. at 39-41. At the conclusion of the examination, Wilson told Plaintiff not to eat anything that would upset his stomach and advised him to "show any vomit to the nursing staff." Dkt. No. 59-1 at ¶¶ 25-26; Dkt. No. 70 at 14, ¶¶ 25-26. Wilson also told Plaintiff to follow up with nursing staff through the sick call process, as needed. Dkt. No. 59-1 at ¶ 27; Dkt. No. 70 at 14, ¶ 27. Plaintif f did not ask Wilson for any pain medication. Dkt. No. 59-5 at 71-72. Plaintiff walked back to his cell.[7]Id. at 47; Dkt. No. 59-1 at ¶ 32; Dkt. No. 70 at 14 ¶ 32.
On May 1, 2015, at approximately 6:20 a.m., defendant White was performing a medication and sick call round. Dkt. No. 59-1 at ¶ 33; Dkt. No. 70 at p. 14, ¶ 33. Plaintif f did not submit a sick call request and thus, was not on the May 1, 2015, sick call list. Dkt. No. 59-5 at 51. As White approached Plaintiff's cell, he stood up and "got [his] face on the window" in an attempt to get her attention. Id. at 52. Upson told White he "had an emergency" and had been vomiting. Id. at 52-53. White responded, "you didn't put a sick-call slip in and it's not an emergency" and "kept going." Id. Plaintiff did not ask White for any pain medication. Dkt. No. 59-5 at 71-72.
On May 1, 2015, at 3:30 p.m., Plaintiff requested emergency sick call and was escorted to the infirmary. Dkt. No. 59-1 at 39; Dkt. No. 70 at p. 15, 39. After a teleconference with a doctor, Plaintiff was transported to an outside hospital for treatment for a bowel obstruction. Dkt. No. 59-1 at 40, 43; Dkt. No. 70 at p. 15, 40, 43.
In September 2018, Upson commenced the within action against Wilson, White, Woods, and other defendants. Dkt. No. 1. Upon review of the Complaint, the Court found that the Eighth Amendment deliberate medical indifference claims survived review and required a response. See Dkt. No. 6. In lieu of filing an answer, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. See Dkt. No. 22. In a Memorandum-Decision and Order filed in September 2020, the Court dismissed the claims against Woods and other defendants, but denied the motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claims against Wilson and White. See Dkt. No. 43.
On October 1, 2020, defendants filed an Answer. Dkt. No. 44. On October 2, 2020, the Court issued a Mandatory Pretrial Discovery and Scheduling Order directing the parties to complete discovery on or before April 2, 2021 and to file dispositive motions on or before June 2, 2021. Dkt. No. 45 at 5-6.
In January 2021, Upson served a demand for documents including his medical records from September 2012 until April 2015. Dkt. No. 70-1 at 50-51. On February 23, 2021, counsel for Defendants responded and advised that requests were made for the documents and the documents would be mailed "no later than March 16, 2021." Id. at 57. On March 8, 2021, Plaintiff requested "the video/audio tapes of plaintiff examination and interaction with both Nurse Wilson and White." Id. at 55. On March 18, 2021, Defendants' counsel served a response to Plaintiff's request for documents and provided copies of his medical records from May 1, 2015, from Upstate C.F. and Alice Hyde Medical Center. Dkt. No. 68-1 at 1-9, 38-55. In response to Plaintiff's demand for complete medical records from September 2012 through April 2015, counsel responded, Id. at 3.
On March 26, 2021, Upson appeared at a deposition. Dkt. No. 59-5. On June 1, 2021, the Court issued an order extending the dispositive motion deadline until September 2, 2021. Dkt. No. 53. On August 18, 2021, the Court granted Defendants' request for an extension of time to file dispositive motions until September 16, 2021. Dkt. No. 57. On September 16, 2021, Defendants filed the within motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 seeking summary judgment and dismissal of all claims against Wilson and White. See generally Dkt. No. 59. Upson opposed the motion. Dkt. No. 70.
Upson contends Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. See generally Compl. Defendants argue they are entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, because Upson cannot establish that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See generally Dkt. No. 59.
A motion for summary judgment may be granted if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, it was supported by affidavits or other suitable evidence, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of disputed material facts by providing the court with portions of pleadings, depositions, and affidavits which support the motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Facts are material if they may affect the outcome of the case as determined by substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 317, 248 (1986). All ambiguities are resolved and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Skubel v. Fuoroli, 113 F.3d 330, 334 (2d Cir. 1997).
The party opposing the motion must set forth facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). For a court to grant a motion for summary judgment, it must be apparent that no rational finder of fact could find in favor of the non-moving party. Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. Partnership, 22 F.3d 1219, 1223-24 (2d Cir. 1994); Graham v. Lewinski, 848 F.2d 342, 344 (2d Cir. 1988).
To continue reading
Request your trial