Collazo v. Pagano
2011 WL 3873791
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Collazo, an inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Great Meadow officials alleging denial of medically-prescribed therapeutic diets violating Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court revoked Collazo’s in forma pauperis status under § 1915(g) as a three-strikes litigant and later granted summary judgment for Pagano on Collazo’s claims.
- Collazo’s diet history began in 2003 after Dr. Nunez recommended a low-saturated-fat diet; the diet was discontinued in Sept. 2003 after a disciplinary report.
- At a Sept. 18, 2003 hearing, Collazo was found guilty of refusing a direct order; the diet was restored on Oct. 10, conditioned on visits with Dr. Nunez.
- Collazo missed several appointments and meals; Pagano again recommended revoking the diet, but it was restored once miscommunications were corrected.
- Collazo commenced the instant action July 31, 2006; district court later denied IFP status and granted Pagano summary judgment on the § 1983 claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court correctly revoked IFP status | Collazo contends the strike count misapplied absolute immunity | Court appropriately counted a strike for dismissal due to absolute prosecutorial immunity | Yes; revocation proper |
| Whether Pagano’s summary judgment on deliberate indifference is proper | Pagano acted with deliberate indifference to medical needs | No evidence of malicious intent; decisions were reasonable | Yes; affirmed summary judgment in Pagano’s favor |
| Whether Collazo had a protected due-process interest in the diet | Diet access implicates due process | No clearly established right shown | Qualified immunity granted; no clearly established right |
Key Cases Cited
- Mills v. Fischer, 645 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissal due to absolute prosecutorial immunity deemed frivolous for § 1915(g))
- Tafari v. Hues, 473 F.3d 440 (2d Cir. 2007) (statutory interpretation of § 1915(g) de novo review)
- United States v. Edwards, 960 F.2d 278 (2d Cir. 1992) (interpretation of frivolousness and strikes in § 1915 context)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard and evidence review)
- Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 532 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary judgment standard; evidence viewed in non-movant’s favor)