Slip Opinion
S.D.N.Y.2022Background:
- Plaintiff Jesus Fernandez, a Muslim detainee at Downstate Correctional Facility, alleges that during intake P.A. Maria Badami examined him while he was in underwear with the curtain open, inspected his genitals, and discussed his medical history within earshot of others.
- Fernandez requested a male physician because of his sincerely held religious belief forbidding exposure to members of the opposite sex; Badami refused.
- Fernandez filed multiple grievances about intake medical examinations; he alleges Superintendent Robert Morton received and denied/failed to act on those grievances.
- Fernandez, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the First (Free Exercise), Fourth (privacy), and Eighth (cruel and unusual punishment) Amendments.
- Morton moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of personal involvement; Badami had not been served and no counsel had appeared for her.
- The Court dismissed all claims against Morton (individual and official-capacity damages barred by the Eleventh Amendment) for failure to plead personal involvement and denied without prejudice Morton’s motion as to Badami; the Court declined leave to amend as to Morton as futile.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morton was personally involved in constitutional violations | Morton knew via multiple grievances and failed to remedy intake practices | Mere receipt of grievances, denial of appeals, or position in chain of command is insufficient to show personal involvement | Dismissed claims against Morton for lack of pleaded personal involvement; no individual liability |
| Whether Badami’s conduct states constitutional claims | Badami’s cross-sex, in‑plain‑view exam and reviewing history in earshot violated Free Exercise, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments | (Motion as to Badami not resolved on merits; she was not served) | Motion to dismiss as to Badami denied without prejudice; merits not decided |
| Whether official-capacity damages claims against Morton are permissible | Plaintiff seeks damages from Morton | Eleventh Amendment bars damages actions against state officials in federal court absent waiver | Official-capacity damages claims against Morton dismissed as barred by Eleventh Amendment |
| Whether to grant leave to amend claims against Morton | Plaintiff afforded liberal amendment as pro se litigant | Court: problems with Morton's claims are substantive, not pleading defects | Leave to replead Morton denied as futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (establishes two‑pronged plausibility test and requires pleading each government official’s own unlawful action)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible, not merely possible)
- Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609 (2d Cir. 2020) (supervisory liability requires pleading elements of underlying constitutional violation against the supervisor)
- Grullon v. City of New Haven, 720 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2013) (plaintiff must plead a defendant’s personal involvement in alleged constitutional deprivation)
- Farid v. Smith, 850 F.2d 917 (2d Cir. 1988) (tests for inmates’ Free Exercise claims)
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (leave to amend should be freely given but may be denied if amendment would be futile)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (standard for whether an appeal in forma pauperis is taken in good faith)