Williams v. N.Y. State Office of Mental Health

ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH, et al., Defendants.

10-CV-1022 (WFK)(JO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

December 14, 2018

DECISION & ORDER

WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:

In this section 1983 action, pro se plaintiff Anthony Williams ("Plaintiff" or "Williams") alleges that defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was involuntarily retained at a state psychiatric center after being found incompetent to stand trial on criminal charges. Previously, the Court partially granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed several defendants from this action. The remaining defendants now move for summary judgment with respect to all claims. The Court referred this motion to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein for a report and recommendation, while also asking the magistrate judge to consider whether a guardian ad litem should be appointed for Williams. Magistrate Judge Orenstein issued two reports in which he recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted and that no guardian ad litem be appointed. For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts both reports in their entirety.

BACKGROUND

A. Factual History

The Court assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this case as set forth in Magistrate Judge Orenstein's reports. See Report and Recommendation dated Aug. 29, 2017, ECF No. 268 ("MSJ R&R"); Report and Recommendation dated Aug. 29, 2017, ECF No. 269 ("Guardianship R&R"). Briefly, on September 8, 2009, Williams was admitted to Kingsboro Psychiatric Center ("KPC") after being found incompetent to stand trial on criminal charges of petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts dated Apr. 20, 2016, ECF No. 249 ("Def. 56.1") ¶¶ 10, 59.¹ Following his admission to KPC, two psychiatrists at the facility certified that Williams met the standard to be involuntarily admitted for 60 days under New York Mental Hygiene Law ("MHL") § 9.27. Def. 56.1 ¶ 63; see MHL § 9.33(a) (no involuntary retention for more than 60 days without court approval). The psychiatrists made this determination based on Williams's psychiatric condition (which included schizoaffective and bipolar disorder), his symptoms (which included grandiose and paranoid delusions, disorganized thought processes, and hostile and threatening behavior), and his history of substance abuse and criminal activity. Def. 56.1 ¶ 62. In the psychiatrists' view, Williams would pose a danger to himself or others if discharged into the community. Id.

On September 14, 2009, Williams met with a court-appointed attorney from the Mental Hygiene Legal Service ("MHLS") to discuss his involuntary commitment and legal options available to him. Id. ¶ 65.² Three days later, Williams, through counsel, requested a hearing under MHL § 9.31 as a predicate to seeking his discharge from KPC. Def. 56.1 ¶ 66; MHL § 9.31(a) ("If, at any time prior to the expiration of sixty days from the date of involuntary admission . . . , [a patient] gives notice in writing to the director of request for hearing on the question of need for involuntary care and treatment, a hearing shall be held . . . ."). A hearingtook place on September 24, 2009 before Justice Anthony Cutrona of New York Supreme Court, Kings County. Def. 56.1 ¶ 67. Justice Cutrona found that Williams posed a danger to himself or others and ordered that he be retained until November 7, 2009—the remainder of the 60-day period for which his involuntary retention had previously been authorized. Id. ¶¶ 73-74. Later that day, Williams's MHLS attorney filed an application under MHL § 9.35 requesting that a jury rehear and review Justice Cutrona's order. Id. ¶ 76; MHL § 9.35 ("If a person who has been denied release or whose retention [or] continued retention . . . has been authorized pursuant to this article . . . he may . . . obtain a rehearing and a review of the proceedings already had . . . . [A] jury [shall] be summoned and shall try the question of the mental illness and the need for retention of the patient . . . ."). At the request of Williams's MHLS attorney, the proceeding was adjourned multiple times until the authorized 60 days of retention passed. Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 77-78, 80, 82, 84; MSJ R&R at 2-3, 8. Accordingly, on November 9, 2009, Justice Bert Bunyan of New York Supreme Court, Kings County, who was to preside over the MHL § 9.35 proceeding, dismissed Williams's request for a jury review as moot. Def. 56.1 ¶ 84.

Previously, on November 4, 2009, three days before the passage of the 60-day retention period, defendant Dr. Andrea Norton, KPC's Director of Psychiatry, filed an application to retain Williams for an additional period not to exceed six months under MHL § 9.33. Id. ¶ 83; MHL § 9.33(a) ("If the director shall determine that a patient admitted . . . is in need of retention and if such patient does not agree to remain in such hospital as a voluntary patient, the director shall apply to the supreme court or the county court in the county where the hospital is located for an order authorizing continued retention."). Dr. Norton's application was based in part on the opinion of named defendant Dr. Jacqueline Castille, who served as Williams's treatingpsychiatrist at KPC.³ Def. 56.1 ¶ 83. In Dr. Castille's view, Williams was highly symptomatic, lacked insight into his mental illness, and would pose a danger to himself or others if discharged. Id. Hearings on the § 9.33 application took place in November and December 2009 before the New York Supreme Court, Kings County. Id. ¶ 85. KPC staff escorted Williams to court for the hearings, where he was represented by MHLS. Id. ¶¶ 86-87. In the course of those proceedings, defendant Dr. Manjula Vikas, a KPC psychiatrist, testified that Williams should be retained given the danger he would pose if discharged. Id. ¶¶ 88-89. On December 3, 2009, Justice Cutrona issued an order granting Dr. Norton's application and authorizing Williams's retention for a period not to exceed six additional months. Id. ¶ 90.

The next day, on December 4, 2009, Williams assaulted Dr. Vikas, causing injuries to her face, head, hand, and foot. Id. ¶ 91; Declaration of Manjula Vikas dated Mar. 31, 2016, ECF No. 255, ¶ 26. KPC staff responded by administering emergency medication to Williams. Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 101, 105. As a result of the assault, Williams was arrested, discharged from KPC, and remanded to Rikers Island. Id. ¶¶ 92-93. MHLS filed another MHL § 9.35 application on Williams's behalf for a jury to review Justice Cutrona's December 3, 2009 order, but the proceeding, which was scheduled for March 10, 2010 never occurred because Williams was no longer retained at KPC by that time. Id. ¶¶ 94, 96.

B. Reports and Recommendations

Two of Magistrate Judge Orenstein's reports and recommendations are now before the Court. As discussed below, in the first report, Magistrate Judge Orenstein recommends that the Court grant summary judgment and dismiss all claims against the four remaining nameddefendants—specifically, KPC Unit Chief Barbara Burroughs, KPC Director of Psychiatry Dr. Norton, KPC psychiatrist Dr. Vikas, and KPC treating psychiatrist Dr. Castille.⁴ In the second report, Magistrate Judge Orenstein recommends that the Court decline to appoint a guardian ad litem for Williams.

1. First Report and Recommendation: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Liberally construing the amended complaint, Magistrate Judge Orenstein found Williams alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights by: (1) denying him access to a jury review of his involuntary civil commitment; (2) failing to offer him adequate psychological counseling; (3) forcing him to take medication over his objection; (4) interfering with his right to practice his religion; (5) denying him access to mail and to the telephone; and (6) depriving him of fresh air. MSJ R&R at 4.⁵ As explained below, Magistrate Judge Orenstein found Williams had failed to create a triable issue of fact with respect to each of these six claims.

First, concerning Williams's contention that defendants denied him a jury review of his involuntary commitment, Magistrate Judge Orenstein construed this claim as alleging a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation. MSJ R&R at 6-7. Magistrate Judge Orenstein found Williams's involuntary commitment deprived him of a liberty interest, but Williamsreceived all the process due given that defendants adhered to MHL's involuntary commitment scheme. Id. at 7 (citing Jelich v. Hogan, 09-CV-3278, 2009 WL 3497495, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2009) (Cogan, J.)).

Second, regarding Williams's complaint that defendants denied him individual psychological counseling, Magistrate Judge Orenstein construed this argument as alleging that he received inadequate medical care in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 8. Analyzing the claim under the standard set out in Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982), the magistrate judge found the claim failed as a matter of law because there was no evidence that his treatment at KPC—which included "psychological counseling, stress management counseling, and group stress management"—departed from accepted medical standards. MSJ R&R at 9. Magistrate Judge Orenstein also found the claim failed because Williams cited no evidence indicating defendants were personally involved in any decision to deny him individual counseling. Id. at 10; see, e.g., Spavone v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 719 F.3d 127, 135 (2d Cir. 2013) ("[P]ersonal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983." (quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Third, with respect to Williams's assertion that he was involuntarily medicated, Magistrate Judge Orenstein construed this contention as asserting a Fourteenth Amendment due process...