Collazo v. Pagano
656 F.3d 131
2d Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Steven Collazo, an inmate at Great Meadow, filed a § 1983 suit alleging denial of medically-prescribed therapeutic diets violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court revoked Collazo's in forma pauperis status under § 1915(g) after concluding he was a three-strikes litigant and later granted summary judgment to Pagano on the § 1983 claims.
- Collazo’s diet was initially prescribed in 2003, later revoked in 2003 after disciplinary reports, then restored conditioned on visits to Dr. Nunez; a 2004 diet renewal occurred after missed meals were found to be due to miscommunication.
- Evidence showed Collazo missed several scheduled visits and meals, and Pagano and health officials discontinued and later restored his special diet based on information and investigations by prison staff.
- Collazo contends the district court erred in counting a prior suit dismissed on absolute prosecutorial immunity as a strike and in denying relief on the § 1983 claims; the district court’s order for Pagano’s summary judgment is challenged on the merits.
- This Court reviews de novo the district court’s § 1915(g) strike determinations and the grant of summary judgment, applying the governing legal standards for deliberate indifference and due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dismissal on absolute prosecutorial immunity counts as a strike under § 1915(g). | Collazo argues the immunized dismissal should not count as a strike. | Defendants assert the dismissal qualifies as a strike under § 1915(g). | Yes; such dismissal counts as a strike. |
| Whether Collazo was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at filing. | Collazo contends ongoing danger justified IFP status. | Defendants maintain no imminent danger existed when suit was filed. | Not met; no imminent danger at filing. |
| Whether Pagano was entitled to summary judgment on Collazo's deliberate-indifference and due-process claims. | Collazo asserts deliberate indifference and due-process violations. | Pagano argues no evidence of the requisite intent and no clearly established right. | Pagano entitled to summary judgment on both claims. |
| Whether Pagano enjoys qualified immunity regarding Collazo's due-process claim. | Collazo maintains a protected due-process interest in the diet. | Pagano asserts no clearly established right and reasonable reliance on staff actions. | Qualified immunity applies; no clearly established right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mills v. Fischer, 645 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissal for absolute prosecutorial immunity counts as a 'strike' under § 1915(g))
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (Supreme Court, 1991) (immunity concerns for prosecutors; framework for absolute immunity)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (Supreme Court, 1982) (reasonable standard for qualified immunity; clearly established rights)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court, 1993) (investigatory versus prosecutorial functions; scope of immunity)