Slip Opinion
S.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Jacks, a New York state prisoner at Green Haven, alleges DOCCS officials and prison medical staff refused to prescribe him Lyrica for chronic neuropathic pain stemming from a 1992 bus accident.
- Plaintiff had previously received Lyrica (1999–2017) with substantial pain relief; after transfer to Green Haven his Lyrica was stopped and he was prescribed alternative medications (Cymbalta, Meloxicam, Elavil) that he contends do not relieve his pain.
- Plaintiff alleges a DOCCS-wide policy or moratorium on certain controlled substances and pain medications, communicated by medical staff, caused the denial of Lyrica.
- He filed a pro se § 1983 complaint asserting an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The Complaint and attachments show he continued to receive medical attention and alternative medications; he did not file opposition to the motion.
- The Court dismissed the federal claim without prejudice for failure to plausibly allege deliberate indifference and declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, permitting amendment within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Lyrica states Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim | Jacks: stopping Lyrica and a moratorium caused serious, ongoing pain and emotional harm | Defendants: Plaintiff received care and alternatives; allegations show disagreement over treatment, not subjective recklessness | Court: Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plausibly allege subjective deliberate indifference |
| Whether alleged DOCCS policy establishes personal culpability of named officials | Jacks: policy issued by Annucci and Koenigsmann caused the denial | Defendants: no plausible allegations of personal involvement; care decisions were medical judgments | Court: Did not reach personal-involvement analysis because Eighth Amendment claim failed |
| Whether failure to exhaust or qualified immunity bars suit | Jacks: (not materially argued in opposition) | Defendants: asserted failure to exhaust and qualified immunity | Court: Declined to address these defenses given dismissal on merits |
| Whether state-law malpractice claims should proceed in federal court | Jacks: alleged possible state-law claims | Defendants: argued federal dismissal would warrant dismissal of state claims | Court: declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed state claims without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; courts draw on experience and common sense)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (subjective awareness and obvious risk can establish deliberate indifference)
- Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (deliberate indifference analysis in prison medical context)
- Spavone v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 719 F.3d 127 (elements of deliberate-indifference claim)
- Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (distinguishing objective seriousness and subjective state of mind)
- Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698 (disagreement over treatment does not establish constitutional violation)
- Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116 (preference for stronger medication alone insufficient for deliberate indifference)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se complaints to be construed liberally)