Brown v. Cade
698 F. App'x 33
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff James Brown, a pro se prisoner at Attica Correctional Facility, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs (back/leg pain and Hepatitis C).
- Defendants included treating clinicians (Dr. Rao and others) and correctional medical staff; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on October 18, 2016.
- Brown sought specific pain treatment (Ultram in pill form) which defendants declined to provide.
- Medical records and defendant testimony showed treatment was provided based on professional judgment and that Ultram pills were contraindicated given Brown’s liver condition and apparent drug-seeking behavior.
- The district court concluded the record would not permit a reasonable jury to find deliberate indifference; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial/refusal to provide Ultram pills and particular pain regimen violated Eighth Amendment | Brown argued defendants were deliberately indifferent by denying the specific pain medication and adequate care | Defendants argued they provided adequate care, had legitimate medical reasons (liver contraindication, drug-seeking signs) to withhold Ultram pills | Court held no deliberate indifference; medical judgment and contraindications defeat claim |
| Whether disagreement about treatment suffices to create constitutional claim | Brown contended his preferred treatment was constitutionally required | Defendants argued mere disagreement with chosen treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference when adequate treatment was provided | Court held mere disagreement is insufficient; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sousa v. Marquez, 702 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (conclusory allegations cannot create genuine dispute)
- Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2006) (elements for Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim)
- Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2011) (disagreement over treatment does not establish constitutional violation)
- Sawyer v. American Federation of Government Employees, 180 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 1999) (consideration of pro se litigant's understanding of summary judgment consequences)