ALKE v. DOCCS 20 (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Erik Alke appeals from a judgment and two orders of the district court dismissing his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the “RA”), the New York State Constitution, and state common law. Alke was an inmate at the Clinton Correction Facility (“Clinton”) when he suffered a back injury while moving furniture. He contends that defendants-appellants -- a doctor and nurse at Clinton -- failed to properly treat his injury. He appeals two orders: (1) the district court's order, filed August 9, 2017, granting defendants-appellees' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion as to all his claims except his § 1983 medical indifference claim against Dr. Richard Adams, a doctor at Clinton, and Jeffrey Taylor, a nurse at Clinton; and (2) the district court's order, entered October 25, 2018, granting summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissing the remaining deliberate indifference claim against Adams and Taylor. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“Our standard of review for both motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment is de novo.” Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). When reviewing a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss, “we accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield Cty., Inc. v. Litchfield Historic Dist. Comm'n, 768 F.3d 183, 191 (2d Cir. 2014) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). A case is properly dismissed where “the complaint cannot state any set of facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Miller, 321 F.3d at 300. When reviewing a district court's grant of a motion for summary judgment, “we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing [the motion].” Lewis v. Siwicki, 944 F.3d 427, 431 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is “no genuine dispute of material fact,” id., and “no rational factfinder could find in favor of the nonmovant,” Soto v. Gaudett, 862 F.3d 148, 157 (2d Cir. 2017).

We have conducted an independent review of the record in light of these principles, and we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned orders.

In its August 9, 2017 order, the lower court correctly dismissed Alke's medical indifference claims against defendants-appellees Brian Fischer, the commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”); Steven Racette, a DOCCS superintendent; and Dr. Vonda Johnson, Clinton's facility health services director, because Alke failed to plead sufficient facts indicating that they were personally involved in treating his back injury. See Farid v. Ellen, 593 F.3d 233, 249 (2d Cir. 2010) (“It is well settled in this Circuit that personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.”). Similarly, the court also correctly dismissed Alke's disability-discrimination claims under the ADA and RA because Alke did not allege facts signaling any discriminatory intent. See Wright v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr., 831 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2016) (“[T]o establish a prima facie violation under [the ADA and RA], [a plaintiff] must show that ․ DOCCS ․ discriminated against him by reason of his disability.” (emphasis added)). Finally, the court was correct in finding that state sovereign immunity precluded suit against DOCCS in federal court, see Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138, 149 (2d Cir. 2004) (finding that § 1983 claims against state agencies are barred unless the state consents to be sued), and that New York Correction Law § 24 prevented Alke from suing the individual defendants because they were all working within the scope of their employment when the alleged violation occurred, see N.Y. Correct. Law § 24(1) (“No civil action shall be brought in any court of the state ․ against any officer or employee ․ for damages arising out of any act done or the failure to perform any act within the scope of the employment and in the discharge of the duties by such officer or employee.”).

In its October 25, 2018 order, the district court correctly dismissed Alke's deliberate indifference claims against Adams and Taylor. The undisputed facts showed that Adams and Taylor provided Alke with extensive medical treatment over the course of more than two years, including examining him regularly, ordering tests (including x-rays, MRIs, and an EMG nerve conduction study), prescribing physical therapy, excusing him from work, and prescribing and adjusting medication. Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that no rational trier of fact could determine that Adams or Taylor acted with the requisite subjective indifference to support a deliberate indifference claim. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“Eighth Amendment suits against prison officials must satisfy a subjective requirement.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123 (2d Cir. 2011) (“Medical malpractice does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation unless the malpractice involves culpable recklessness.”).

* * *

We have considered Alke's remaining arguments and conclude they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment and orders of the district court.