Dumel v. Westchester Cnty.

656 F.Supp.3d 454

Tyron DUMEL, Plaintiff, v. WESTCHESTER COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

No. 19-CV-2161 (KMK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

Signed February 14, 2023

Tyron Dumel, Elmira, NY, Pro Se Plaintiff.

Jane H. Felix, Esq., Westchester County Attorney's Office, White Plains, New York, Counsel for Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:

Plaintiff Tyron Dumel ("Plaintiff"), a pretrial detainee at Westchester County Jail at the time of the allegations, brings this Action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sergeant Matthew Kitt ("Kitt," "Sgt. Kitt," or "Defendant"). (See Am. Compl. at 1, 3 (Dkt. No. 33).)¹

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defendant's Motion"), (see Not. of Mot. for Summ. J. ("Not. of Mot.") (Dkt. No. 93)). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are taken from Defendant's statements pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, (Def's Rule 56.1 Statement ("Def's 56.1") (Dkt. No. 99)); Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Am. Compl.); and Plaintiff's Letter in Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment dated September 13, 2022 ("Plaintiff's Letter"), (Pl's Letter in Response to Def's Summ. J. Mot. ("Pl's Letter") (Dkt. No. 103)).²

1. Plaintiff's Chlamydia Infection

Plaintiff arrived at the Westchester County Jail ("WCJ") for pretrial detention on September 25, 2018, whereupon he requested to be tested for sexually transmitted infections ("STIs"). (Def's 56.1 ¶ 2; Am. Compl. 2.)³ On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff was tested for STIs. (Am. Compl. 2; Def's Decl. in Supp. of Mot. ("Def's Decl.") Exh. C ("Pl's Medical Records Pt. 3") 129-30 (Dkt. No. 100-5).) Two days later, test results indicated that Plaintiff had Chlamydia, (Def's 56.1 ¶¶ 2-3; Am. Compl. 2; Pl's Medical Records Pt. 3 at 129), "a common [sexually transmitted disease]" that can cause considerable discomfort in men, including "a burning sensation" when urinating. See Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention ("CDC"), Chlamydia - CDC Basic Fact Sheet 1 (June 12, 2022), https://www.cdc.gov/std/chlamydia/stdfact-chlamydia.htm.⁴ The same day, a doctor and nurse told Plaintiff about the infection, and the doctor ordered medication, a single dose of 2-4 antibiotic pills, to treat Plaintiff's infection. (Def's 56.1 ¶ 3; Am. Compl. 2; Def's Decl. Exh. C ("Pl's Medical Records Pt. 2") at 135 (Dkt. No. 100-4); Def's Decl. Exh. C ("Pl's Medical Records Pt. 4") at 1 (Dkt. No. 100-6).) When the nurse came to Plaintiff's cell to pass out medication, she told Plaintiff that she had forgotten the medication and would return with it later; however, the nurse never returned. (See Def's 56.1 ¶ 3.) At this time, Plaintiff was experiencing a single symptom of a slight tingling after he urinated. (Def's Decl. Exh. B ("Pl's Dep.") 28:23-29:16 (Dkt. No. 100-2).)

Over the next several months, Plaintiff spoke to WCJ medical staff often about getting medication to treat his Chlamydia infection. (See Def's 56.1 ¶¶ 4-6; Am. Compl. 2.) During October and early November 2018, WCJ medical staff told Plaintiff that he would be treated at some point for his infection, but starting at the end of November, the staff told him that he would not receive treatment because he had refused it. (See Pl's Dep. 77:13-78:2.) Plaintiff denies that he ever refused treatment for Chlamydia. (See Pl's Letter 3; Am. Compl. 3.)⁵

While his infection remained untreated, Plaintiff's symptoms worsened and included swollen and tender testicles, debilitating headaches, nausea, and severe burning when urinating. (See Pl's Letter 1-2; Am. Compl. 2; Pl's Dep. 70:16-71:2.) On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff reported to WCJ medical staff that he had been tested for Chlamydia in September and had not received treatment. (See Pl's Medical Records Pt. 2 at 27.) Plaintiff filed a grievance with jail officials the following day (Pl's Letter 13), and his infection was treated on January 2, 2019, (Pl's Medical Records Pt. 2 at 20; Am. Compl. 3).

2. Plaintiff's Interactions with Sgt. Kitt

Plaintiff did not regularly see or interact with Kitt during his time at WCJ. (See Pl's Dep. 63: 5-7; Def's 56.1 ¶ 8.) In fact, Plaintiff interacted with Kitt on only two occasions.

First, Plaintiff spoke to Kitt directly about his infection. (See Pl's Dep. at 56:7-9; 65:19-21.) Kitt claims that Plaintiff approached him in December 2018. (See Def's 56.1 ¶ 8; Pl's Dep. 65:19-21.) Plaintiff argues that he doesn't recall when he had the conversation with Kitt. (See Pl's Letter 2; Pl's Dep. 56:7-9.)

Plaintiff and Kitt had a brief conversation. Kitt, relying on Plaintiff's deposition testimony, takes the position that Plaintiff told Kitt that he had a medical condition that needed to be taken care of, but never explicitly informed Kitt that he had Chlamydia or described any symptoms. (See Pl's Dep. 61:6-13, 16-19; 63:18-24; Def's 56.1 ¶ 7.) Plaintiff, relying on his Amended Complaint, claims that he informed Kitt that he had recently tested positive for Chlamydia while in WCJ and that WCJ medical staff had not provided any form of treatment despite their knowledge of his infection. (See Am. Compl. at 2.)

Whatever Plaintiff told Kitt, Kitt responded "wow, you're burning, dude," which Plaintiff understood to be a reference to his Chlamydia infection. (See Pl's Dep. 61:19-21; Am. Compl. at 3.) Kitt then told Plaintiff that he "was going to speak with [the] medical [staff] and [would] be back in a few minutes" (Id. at 61:22-24; Am. Compl. at 3; Def's 56.1 ¶ 8). Kitt never returned. (See Pl's Dep. 61:22-62:3; Def's 56.1 ¶ 8.) Plaintiff did not speak to Kitt about his infection again. (See Pl's Dep. 63:3-5, 12-15; Def's 56.1 ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff also overheard Kitt comment on his infection while speaking with another officer. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff stated that "several days [after I told Kitt about my infection] I overheard Kitt laughing with [Sgt]. Carrozza about my Chlamydia condition." (Am. Compl. at 3.) During his deposition, Plaintiff testified that Kitt was aware of his Chlamydia infection a few days after September 28 because around that time he overheard Kitt making a comment—"that guy's burning"—to another corrections officer while laughing. (See Pl's Dep. 52:16-53:8.) Plaintiff emphasized that he was certain that he overheard this conversation before speaking to Kitt because it was his belief that Kitt was already aware of his infection that caused him to discuss it directly with Kitt and ask for his assistance speaking to medical staff. (See Pl's Dep. 61:6-21.)

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on March 8, 2019, naming Kitt, Westchester County (the "County"), Correct Care Solutions, LLC ("Correct Care"), Medical Director Dr. Raul Ulloa ("Ulloa"), Commissioner Joseph Spano ("Spano"), Dr. Alexis Gendell ("Gendell"), and "Nurse Jane Doe" as Defendants. (Compl. 1 (Dkt. No. 2).)⁶ The Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis on May 21, 2019, (see Dkt. No. 5), and, on June 24, 2019, issued an Order of Service directing Correct Care to aid Plaintiff in ascertaining the identity of Nurse Jane Doe and to inform Plaintiff of this person's identity, (see Dkt. No. 9). The Order of Service also directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days of learning the nurse's identity. (Id.) On August 7, 2019, counsel for Defendants identified the nurse as Vladimir Asseauguste ("Asseauguste"). (Letter from Paul A. Sanders, Esq., to Court (Aug. 7, 2019) 1 (Dkt. No. 18).) The following day, the Court again directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint naming Asseauguste as a Defendant. (See Dkt. No. 19.) After Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the Court issued an Order on November 8, 2019 directing Plaintiff to show cause why the claims against "Nurse Jane Doe" should not be dismissed. (See Order To Show Cause 2 (Dkt. No. 24).) Plaintiff responded on December 4, 2019, (see Dkt. No. 28), and, after receiving several extensions from the Court, (see Dkt. Nos. 29, 32), Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on March 4, 2020, (see Dkt. No. 33).

Pursuant to a briefing schedule set by the Court, (see Dkt. No. 40), Municipal Defendants and Medical Defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss on May 26, 2020, (see Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 42)), and the County and Correctional Defendants filed a separate Motion To Dismiss on June 2, 2020, (see Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 46)). Meanwhile, on May 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter in response to arguments outlined by counsel for Defendants in their respective pre-motion letters. (See Letter from Tyron Dumel to Court (May 29, 2020) 1 (Dkt. No. 47).) Municipal and Medical Defendants filed their Reply on July 8, 2020. (See Reply Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Defs.' Mot. To Dismiss (Dkt. No. 48).) On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a short document styled as an "Affidavit in Response to [Defendants'] Motion[s] To Dismiss," in which Plaintiff requested "time for discovery," averring that Defendants were in possession of "crucial documents" needed to oppose the Motions to Dismiss. (See Aff. in Resp. to Mot. To Dismiss ¶¶ 5-6 (Dkt. No. 51).) The Court denied the request on July 16, 2020, explaining that "[d]iscovery at this point in the proceedings would be premature," (see Dkt. No. 54), and County and Correctional Defendants filed their Reply on July 21, 2020, (see Reply Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Mot. To Dismiss (Dkt. No. 55)). On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court requesting additional time to file an Opposition to Defendants' Motions. (See Letter from Tyron Dumel to Court (Aug. 18, 2020) (Dkt. No. 56).) On August 27, 2020, the Court gave Plaintiff until September 30, 2020 to file any additional Opposition papers, (see Dkt. No. 57), but Plaintiff failed to do so. The Court issued an Opinion & Order on February 25, 2021 dismissing all Defendants except for Kitt. (See 2021 Op.)

The Parties concluded discovery...