Paschal-Barros v. Balatka
20-3150-cv
| 2d Cir. | Nov 12, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Kyle Paschal-Barros, pro se, sued two prison nurses under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by allowing corrections officers to spray him with a chemical agent.
- He alleged his asthma was a contraindication to use of the chemical agent and that the nurses should have prevented its use.
- Medical records showed his asthma was well controlled, listed no contraindication to chemical agents, and he suffered no asthma attack when sprayed.
- The district court (Bryant, J.) granted summary judgment for the nurses; Paschal-Barros appealed.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed, finding no genuine dispute that the nurses were subjectively reckless or that a serious risk of harm existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs | Paschal-Barros: his asthma was a contraindication and nurses knew or should have known spraying risked serious harm | Nurses: records showed asthma well controlled, no contraindication listed, and no evidence of serious risk or post-exposure harm | Affirmed: no evidence nurses were subjectively aware of a substantial risk; deliberate indifference not established |
| Failure-to-protect / alternative Eighth Amendment theory | Paschal-Barros: claim should be construed as failure to protect | Defendants: claim was not pleaded or argued below | Not considered on appeal: claim not raised in complaint or below, so waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for inadequate medical care)
- Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698 (2d Cir. 1998) (deliberate indifference standard in prison medical cases)
- Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2006) (subjective requirement: actual awareness of substantial risk)
- Spavone v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 719 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2013) (deliberate indifference has objective and subjective prongs)
- Garcia v. Hartford Police Dep’t, 706 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review on summary judgment)
- Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary judgment proper only when no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. D’Urso, 371 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2004) (issues not raised below are generally not considered on appeal)