Jones v. Sheriff of Suffolk Cnty.

518 F.Supp.3d 650

Khalik JONES, Plaintiff,

v.SHERIFF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

18-cv-0665 (BMC) (AYS)

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed February 10, 2021

Khalik Jones, Romulus, NY, pro se.

Brian C. Mitchell, Suffolk County Dept. of Law-County Attorney, Hauppauge, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

COGAN, District Judge.

This is a pro se prisoner's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a number of pleadings after the initial complaint that the previously assigned Magistrate Judge deemed "supplemental". That resulted in surviving claims against 24 defendants employed by Suffolk County prison facilities or law enforcement, not counting the claims against another dozen or so institutional and state-employed defendants who were previously dismissed. All of these claims arise largely from unrelated incidents while plaintiff was in custody, although a few of the claims involve two defendants. In opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, however, plaintiff has not pursued his claims against 19 of the defendants. As to those 19 defendants, I have reviewed the record in light of plaintiff's pro se status and conclude that those defendants are entitled to summary judgment.¹

That leaves us with five defendants. I will discuss plaintiff's claims as to each of them below. I have taken the facts from plaintiff's affidavits and exhibits, except as to additional facts that defendants have proffered which he does not dispute, and have construed the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff.²

I. Dr. Geraci and Dr. Wickramaaratchi ("Dr. Ari")

A. Background

Plaintiff's claims against these two staff physicians arise out of separate incidents. I have attempted to reconstruct the record of his complaints and the facilities’ responses from the medical records and his requests for medical appointments (which were extensive). For the most part, the incidents arise out of plaintiff's relentless demands for oxycodone and the doctors’ decisions to first give him other painkillers instead, and then, when he engaged in hoarding the substitutes, cut him off.

As to the first incident, plaintiff arrived at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility ("SCCF") as a pretrial detainee on May 27, 2017. He had his initial medical screening from Dr. Ari. Plaintiff advised Dr. Ari that he suffered from nerve damage and "other debilitating injuries," that he had "extreme chronic pain," and that he needed the prescribed medications that he brought with him. Those medications were Oxycontin (generic: oxycodone, a very strong opiate); Robaxin (generic: methocarbamol, a muscle relaxer that blocks nerve /pain sensations); and Neurontin (generic: gabapentin, an anti-seizure medication). Dr. Ari confirmed through a medical database that plaintiff had a prescription for these medications.

Dr. Ari advised plaintiff that he was going to change the oxycodone prescription to codeine sulfate. Plaintiff objected to this change.

By May 29, 2017, plaintiff had not received one of his medications, apparently the codeine sulfate. That same day, plaintiff submitted a medical health request form, noting that he was requesting "mental health" treatment. He checked boxes showing he had a "medication problem"; a "mental health issue"; and "pain" in his hand, wrist, and back. In the narrative portion of the form, he wrote, "I really need to speak with someone & I had a psych earlier this month when I was home." The request went to Dr. Geraci, who noted that the missing drug was not currently available in the SCCF pharmacy and referred plaintiff's case back to Dr. Ari to prescribe a replacement medication. Dr. Geraci made a note in plaintiff's chart that there was "[n]o indication that this case needs immediate attention."³ On June 2, 2018, some six days after his admission to SCCF, plaintiff began receiving codeine sulfate. Ultimately, a grievance panel concluded that plaintiff should have been given a "bridge" medication for the six days between May 27th and June 2nd.

The second incident traces back to July 3, 2017, when plaintiff requested another medical consultation, this one labeled "medical" (not "mental health"). Essentially, he demanded that SCCF reinstate his oxycodone prescription because he did not consider the codeine sulfate to be adequate. He complained that the "pain medication [codeine sulfate] was not working and I've been expressing this since day one that I NEED my medication [oxycodone ], and it's like you don't even care." He filed similar requests with increasing levels of agitation on July 6th, 7th, 8th, and 12th, the last of which noted that he had "excruciating chronic pain, due to having nerve damage." He saw Dr. Geraci on July 20th, who suggested a cane as a possible way to reduce his leg pain. On July 21st, 22nd, and 24th, plaintiff filed additional requests for medical intervention, focusing on his need for the cane.

After meeting with plaintiff, Dr. Geraci concluded that plaintiff was malingering. He noted on July 13, 2017 that plaintiff

DOES NOT need any additional meds in my opinion and if I were him, then I would request that we reduce any of the meds he is taking. I do not believe that his pain is 8 of 10 as reported and I think he just wants more medication (not considering the negative effects of the meds on his organ systems). He does not want a reduction of meds at this time despite my recommendation that he only takes what he needs in terms of his aches and pains that he reports. Again, he is not in any distress and looks well.

A week later, Dr. Geraci commented further on plaintiff's condition:

We reviewed his EKG and it is noted to have bradycardia with [ ] RBBB and LAFB ; my concern is that the meds may be causing a conduction delay as he is taking Codeine, Robaxin, Neurontin, Seroquel and he seems to want more narcotic analgesics but he is refraining for now due to the benefit risk concerns that I have regarding cardiac status. He agrees that NOT adding additional meds is the prudent thing to do at this time and he accepted my offer for a PT eval and to see if a cane has more benefit than harm for his needs; [although] a cane can cause problems associated with center of gravity compensations which can result in more back pain.⁴

Plaintiff nevertheless received a change of pain medication a few days or a week later,⁵ but not back to the oxycodone that he wanted. Instead, his codeine sulfate prescription was changed to morphine sulfate.

About seven weeks later, on September 13, 2017, plaintiff was caught during a cell check and internal strip search hoarding his morphine and Seroquel, i.e. , not taking them. The cell check occurred because he was observed on a video recording talking to a female inmate⁶ who was then found in possession of morphine sulfate (for which she apparently had no prescription). The search of plaintiff and his cell resulted in the discovery of 23 Seroquel pills and 27 morphine pills. The vast majority of the pills were found in plaintiff's buttocks wrapped in plastic.

On the same day that the pills were found, Dr. Geraci terminated plaintiff's prescription for the morphine and Seroquel, concluding that if plaintiff was hoarding and hiding it, there was no reason to prescribe it. The next day, the facility filed disciplinary charges against plaintiff for possessing and hiding the contraband morphine and Seroquel. He was found guilty and penalized with an extensive loss of privileges. He was also criminally charged with illegal drug possession.⁷

Plaintiff does not dispute any of this but adds some embellishment. According to plaintiff, he was hoarding some, but not all, of his medication because taking the prescribed amount made him feel sleepy and he needed to focus on his legal case because he was suffering from "ineffective assistance of counsel." He asserts that he confronted medical on several occasions (no particulars given and nothing in the record) to discuss this problem but was told that if he wasn't going to take the prescription medication according to the schedule that the doctors wanted him to, then the medical department would no longer prescribe the medication.

Two things happened thereafter. First, plaintiff suffered seizures on September 16th and September 18th. He had a long history of seizures stemming from epilepsy that may have been triggered by a fall in his youth. His prescription for Neurontin was purposed specifically as an anti-seizure medication, and he had been taking it for decades.

Second, plaintiff was receiving care from a psychiatrist at SCCF, Dr. Chatterjee, who reinstated his Seroquel prescription on October 14, 2017. On October 20th, Dr. Geraci countermanded that prescription, stating, "this patient was caught misusing seroquel and mso4 [morphine sulfate], he is not trustworthy or reliable; that's dangerous, and I will not allow those meds at this time; safety reason." Dr. Chatterjee saw plaintiff again on October 28th, and renewed the Seroquel again. It does not appear to have been terminated thereafter.

From this chain of events, plaintiff contends that Drs. Ari and Geraci were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in three respects: (1) they left him without pain medication for six days (May 27, 2017 to June 2, 2017); (2) Dr. Ari gave him codeine sulfate instead of oxycodone, even though plaintiff believes that codeine sulfate is "less affective [sic]" than oxycodone ; and (3) Dr. Geraci should not have cut off plaintiff's morphine in September, or, at least, he should have "weaned" plaintiff off it slowly instead of having him go cold turkey.

B. Analysis

Plaintiff claims that defendants’ deliberate indifference to his serious medical concerns violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Because he was a pretrial detainee during the period of treatment, I must evaluate his claims under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. See Yancey v. Robertson, 828 F. App'x 801, 803 (...