624 F. App'x 10
2d Cir.2015Background
- Maria Viera died on September 2, 2010, in Monroe County Jail; cause alleged to be myocarditis from heroin withdrawal.
- Plaintiff (Viera’s administrator) sued Correctional Medical Care, two nurses (Augello, McQueeney), and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to medical needs and for municipal liability (Monell).
- Amended complaint alleges Viera admitted daily drug use, was under the influence at booking, was vomiting and in distress, and was not referred for medically supervised detox.
- District court dismissed the amended complaint and denied reconsideration; plaintiff appealed.
- Second Circuit reviews dismissal de novo (Rule 12(b)(6)) and denial of leave to replead for abuse of discretion; it affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended complaint alleges objectively serious medical condition | Viera’s drug dependence, admission she was under the influence, vomiting, and distress plead a serious condition | Withdrawal is not per se serious; facts alleged here insufficient | Allegations plausibly plead an objectively serious condition when liberally construed for Viera |
| Whether allegations satisfy subjective deliberate-indifference standard against nurse Augello and nurse McQueeney | Augello performed booking screen showing drug use and failed to refer for supervised detox; McQueeney observed vomiting and distress | Defendants contended complaint didn’t show knowledge of serious risk for either nurse | Sufficient for Augello (knew of drug use and failed to act); insufficient for McQueeney (no pleaded knowledge of history or withdrawal) |
| Whether Monell claim against Correctional Medical Care was plausibly pleaded | Plaintiff alleged company practice/custom led to inadequate detox supervision and supervisory indifference | Defendants said no formal policy alleged, no widespread custom, and no plausible supervisory knowledge alleged | Monell claim not plausibly pleaded: no nonconclusory formal policy, insufficient examples to show widespread custom, and no plausible supervisory deliberate indifference |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying post-judgment reconsideration | Plaintiff argued denial was improper | Defendants defended denial | Court vacated and remanded underlying dismissal; did not decide the reconsideration ruling on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 82 (2d Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) de novo review; accept pleaded facts and draw inferences for plaintiff)
- Caiozzo v. Koreman, 581 F.3d 63 (2d Cir.) (withdrawal can satisfy objective serious-medical-condition element)
- Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.) (elements of Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S.) (subjective deliberate indifference standard: defendant must know and disregard substantial risk)
- Johnson v. Wright, 412 F.3d 398 (2d Cir.) (application of Farmer standard)
- Jones v. Town of East Haven, 691 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.) (Monell pleading: policy, custom, or supervisory deliberate indifference)
- Williams v. Citigroup, Inc., 659 F.3d 208 (2d Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for denial of leave to replead)