Hilton v. Wright, 928 F. Supp. 2d 530

Hilton, an inmate with chronic hepatitis C (genotype 1), was denied hepatitis C treatment in 2003 and again in 2005 due to DOCCS guidelines requiring either a minimum anticipated incarceration period or ASAT completion.
Dr. Wright, DOCCS’s Chief Medical Officer, must approve HCV treatment requests; facility physicians cannot treat without his approval.
DOCCS’ Hepatitis C Primary Care Practice Guideline linked preconditions (Length of incarceration and ASAT) to eligibility for treatment; these preconditions were at issue for denials.
Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment and discrimination under Title II and Section 504 because treatment was withheld due to the Guidelines’ preconditions.
The case proceeded on a motion for summary judgment; the court addressed capacity, merits of Eighth Amendment claims, ADA/Title II, Rehabilitation Act claims, and attorneys’ fees.
The court ultimately vacated and partially granted summary judgment, finding disputed facts precluding dismissal of several claims and waiving the 2003 denial claim while affirming some denials as waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dr. Wright’s denial of HCV treatment violated the Eighth Amendment	Hilton argues denial despite serious medical need shows deliberate indifference	Wright asserts medical guidelines and discretion justified denial	Issue contested; jury could find deliberate indifference given disputed facts
Whether Dr. Wright and DOCCS violated Title II by discriminating based on disability	Hilton asserts he was denied treatment because of perceived disability	Defendants contend no disability was proven and no discrimination established	Genuine issue of material fact; Title II claim to be analyzed on merits
Whether Dr. Wright and DOCCS violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act	Hilton claims disability-based denial similar to Title II	Defendants argue similar to Title II with funds-based scope	Issue preserved for merits; material facts in dispute
Sovereign immunity implications for Title II/§504 claims	Title II claims abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity	Immunity may apply absent Fourteenth Amendment violation	Sovereign immunity denied without prejudice to renew on later proceedings

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (prisoner must receive adequate medical care; deliberate indifference test требует both objective and subjective components)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (defines objective seriousness of medical need and actionable risk)
Johnson v. Wright, 412 F.3d 398 (2d Cir. 2005) (denial of HCV treatment based on ASAT could be deliberate indifference)
Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2006) (analyze delay/denial of care by focusing on actual delay and harm)
United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (U.S. 2006) (abrogation of sovereign immunity under Title II when conduct violates Fourteenth Amendment)
Bolmer v. Oliveira, 594 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2010) (clarifies abrogation framework and discriminatory animus considerations under Title II)
Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (Eleventh Amendment limitations on §1983 claims against states)
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (U.S. 1976) (procedural framework for assessing official-capacity claims against state actors)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (standard for official vs. personal capacity under §1983)