Moore v. Kwan
683 F. App'x 24
2d Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Taurice Moore, pro se prisoner at Sing Sing, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and unsafe-conditions claims against medical staff and corrections officers.
- Moore told medical staff he had a seizure disorder but was not issued a bottom-bunk pass; he was assigned to a top bunk and fell after having a seizure.
- Moore also alleged he was assigned to a work detail requiring use of a step-ladder despite his seizure disorder and fell from the ladder.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; Moore appealed.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo the grant of summary judgment and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs | Moore: medical staff knew of his seizure disorder and failed to secure a lower-bunk pass, causing harm | Defendants: even if informed, medical staff acted within medical judgment and did not act with recklessness | Court: No subjective deliberate indifference; evidence shows at most negligence, so summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Unsafe conditions of confinement (work assignment) | Moore: assignment to ladder work posed substantial risk given his seizure disorder | Defendants: ladder was safe, no prior falls, supervisors unaware of any work limitations or permit | Court: No substantial risk and no culpable intent by officers; summary judgment affirmed |
| Leave to amend complaint | Moore: district court should have sua sponte allowed another amendment to plead deliberate indifference | Defendants: plaintiff failed to request leave below; no basis to raise on appeal | Court: Argument forfeited because Moore did not seek leave in district court; not considered on appeal |
| Evidentiary sufficiency to defeat summary judgment | Moore: factual disputes (e.g., whether he told PA Kwan) preclude summary judgment | Defendants: remaining disputes are not material to deliberate indifference standard | Court: Some factual dispute exists but not as to recklessness; material facts do not show Eighth Amendment violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Sousa v. Marquez, 702 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard)
- Yin Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522 (2d Cir. 1993) (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698 (2d Cir. 1998) (elements of deliberate indifference claim)
- Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2006) (subjective component: actual awareness of substantial risk)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (medical malpractice or negligence not sufficient for Eighth Amendment claim)
- Hayes v. NYC Dep’t of Corr., 84 F.3d 614 (2d Cir. 1996) (standards for unsafe-conditions claims and culpable intent)
- Anderson News, L.L.C. v. Am. Media, Inc., 680 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend)
- Virgilio v. City of New York, 407 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2005) (issues not raised below generally not considered on appeal)