Green v. Schriro

HIKEEN GREEN, Plaintiff, v. DR. DORA B. SCHRIRO, Commissioner of NYC Department of Corrections,ERIK BERLINER, Associate Commissioner of Health Affairs for NYC Department of Corrections,LUIS A. RIVERA, Warden of Anna M. Kross Center, VIOLETA SANTA-CRUZ,HASAN AZMAT, MD, Doctor for Anna M. Kross Center, RAINO HILLS,Warden of Robert N. Davoren Center, MOHAMMED HABIB, MD,Doctor for Robert N. Davoren Center, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

18-CV-01641 (PKC) (LB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

April 22, 2019

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Hikeen Green ("Plaintiff"), appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, brings this action against Defendants Dr. Dora B. Schriro, Commissioner of the NYC Department of Corrections; Erik Berliner, Associate Commissioner of Health Affairs for the NYC Department of Corrections; Hasan Azmat, MD, Doctor for the Anna M. Kross Center; Raino Hills, Warden of the Robert N. Davoren Center; Mohammed Habib, MD, Doctor for the Robert N. Davoren Center (collectively, "City Defendants"); and Violeta Santa-Cruz,¹ alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment and New York state law in connection with his medical treatment in prison. Beforethe Court are two separate motions to dismiss filed by the City Defendants and Defendant Santa-Cruz. For the reasons stated below, the City Defendants' motion is denied and Defendant Santa-Cruz's motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

I. Relevant Facts²

Plaintiff alleges that while in the custody of the New York City Department of Corrections ("NYC DOC"), he was inadequately treated for syphilis. According to Plaintiff, after he was arrested and detained in early December 2012, NYC DOC medical personnel administered a physical exam that included blood work and lab tests. (Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl."), Dkt. 67-1, ¶¶ 6-8.) On December 5, 2012, results from the lab tests confirmed that Plaintiff tested positive for syphilis. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff alleges that medical staff, including Defendant Santa-Cruz and Defendant Azmat, told him that he would get the necessary treatment for the disease. (Id.) Plaintiff believes the treatment he received included either a shot or medicine in a powder form. (Transcript of June 1, 2018 pre-motion conference ("June 1 Transcript"), Dkt. 58, at 5:15-18.)

In June 2013, Plaintiff was in the process of being transferred to the state correctional system. (Am. Compl. ¶ 10.) As part of this transfer process, Defendant Santa-Cruz³ completed a review of Plaintiff's medical records and prepared paperwork, including a form entitled "Inter-System Transfer/Pre-Screening Form - Medical Information"⁴ ("Transfer Form"), to ensure that Plaintiff's medical treatment continued uninterrupted upon his transfer. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 12; Transfer Form, Dkt. 48-2.) The Transfer Form, dated June 14, 2013, notes that Plaintiff was diagnosed with syphilis on December 5, 2012. (Transfer Form, Dkt. 48-2, at ECF⁵ 2; Defendant Santa-Cruz Reply Brief ("Reply Br."), Dkt. 66, at 1-2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Santa-Cruz failed to ensure that Plaintiff's medical records were complete and accurate and "failed to notify the necessary parties[] [that] the records [were] missing documentation of any treatment for the diagnosed [syphilis] condition." (Am. Compl. ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff also alleges that at the same time he was in the process of being transferred, two further blood tests confirmed that on June 14, 2013 and June 20, 2013 Plaintiff still had active syphilis that needed treatment. (Am. Compl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges that no one at NYC DOC ever told him about these positive tests. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 13; June 1 Transcript at 8:12-14 ("During [June 2013], I was called down to the medical department[,] but they never told me that I still . . . needed treatment.").) In fact, Plaintiff alleges that after receiving his initial diagnosis in December 2012, he was never given any other information about his syphilis infection while incarcerated at NYC DOC. (See June 1 Transcript at 7:25-8:16.)

On July 1, 2013, Plaintiff was transferred to the state prison system. (Am. Compl. ¶ 13.) Upon being transferred, Plaintiff alleges that his health care providers "were unsure about whether or not . . . the proper treatment [was] administered for the diagnosed condition, and if it was ever completed, because of the incomplete and unclear medical records which were initially provided by NYC[]DOC." (Am. Compl. ¶ 14.)⁶ It wasn't until June 2017, when a non-party doctor, "Dr. K. Mantaro," told Plaintiff that there was "no indication or record" that Plaintiff was ever properly treated for syphilis. (Id. ¶ 15.) She referred Plaintiff to a specialist, who suggested that Plaintiff undergo a lumbar puncture procedure to determine if the syphilis infection was still active. (Id.) The lumbar puncture confirmed that Plaintiff's infection had progressed to neurosyphilis. (Id. ¶ 17.) The non-party doctors informed Plaintiff that "the accepted and standard treatment" for a syphilis diagnosis was "3 consecutive shots of penicillin or [p]enicillin administered intravenously." (Am. Compl. ¶ 18 (internal quotations omitted).) To address his neurosyphilis, Plaintiff was treated with a ten-day intravenous course of penicillin from September 21, 2017 to October 2, 2017. (Id. ¶¶ 19-20.)

II. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on March 14, 2018. (Dkt. 1.) In the original complaint, Plaintiff provided addresses for all Defendants. (Id. at ECF 1-2.) Though summonses were returned executed as to all Defendants (Dkts. 7-13), City Defendants argued that service was improper. (Dkt. 15 at ECF 1-2 (requesting that Defendants Hasan and Habib be served at their work addresses and asking for more time to find the proper addresses for Defendants Schriro,Berliner, Rivera, and Hills).) The Honorable Lois Bloom, the magistrate judge assigned to this matter, noted that City Defendants could contest service when they answered the Complaint, but denied City Defendants' request for more time to find proper addresses and/or order the U.S. Marshals Service to re-serve some Defendants. (Apr. 19, 2018 Order, Dkt. 17.)⁷ City Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 16, 2018. (Dkt. 53.) On January 3, 2019, Defendant Santa-Cruz⁸ filed a pre-motion conference request that the Court construed as a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 64; Jan. 4, 2019 Order.) Before briefing was completed on Defendant Santa-Cruz's motion, Plaintiff was granted permission to file an amended complaint. (Jan. 31, 2019 Order; Dkt. 67-1.) City Defendants and Defendant Santa-Cruz then filed additional replies to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Dkts. 70, 72.) Oral Argument on Defendant Santa-Cruz's Motion to Dismiss, at which City Defendants also appeared and argued, was held on March 19, 2019. (Mar. 19, 2019 Minute Entry.)

LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679 (citation omitted). "In addressing the sufficiency of a complaint, [the Court] accept[s] as true all factual allegations and draw[s] from them all reasonable inferences; but [the Court is] not required to credit conclusory allegations or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations." Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 82, 94 (2d Cir. 2013).

"A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Nonetheless, "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotations, brackets, and citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

I. City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

City Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(5) since they were not properly served, as requiredby Rule 4(e), and under Rule 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff failed to file his claim within the applicable statute of limitations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5)-(6).

A. Service

"Before addressing Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must first address the preliminary questions of service and personal jurisdiction." Mende v. Milestone Tech., Inc., 269 F. Supp. 2d 246, 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Defendants argue that since Plaintiff has failed to properly effect service, his case must be dismissed. However, under Rule 4, if a plaintiff fails to effect service on a defendant, the Court "must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (emphasis added). Furthermore, "if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend...