Pica v. Gorg
1:12-cv-00927
W.D.N.Y.Mar 15, 2018Background
- Pro se inmate Freddy Pica sued DOCCS staff alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for inadequate treatment of chronic back and knee pain and for nurse Angie Gorg crushing his prescribed Lyrica in March 2012.
- Pica sought injunctive and declaratory relief plus $150,000 in damages; earlier co-defendants Oakes and Canfield were dismissed on summary judgment.
- Gorg was served, retired during the case, and moved for summary judgment arguing lack of personal involvement and that her actions complied with the standard of care and medical orders.
- Plaintiff did not respond to Gorg’s summary judgment motion or submit a Local Rule 56 counterstatement despite receiving Irby notice of the consequences.
- The magistrate judge deemed Gorg’s factual statements admitted, reviewed Pica’s medical records, and found treatment occurred, some noncompliance by Pica with medications, and penological reasons for crushing pills (preventing cheeking).
- The magistrate recommended granting summary judgment for Gorg, concluding Pica’s claims at best alleged disagreement or negligence, not Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference; injunctive relief was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether crushing Lyrica and related conduct amounted to Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Crushing rendered medication ineffective and was retaliatory, causing continued severe pain | Gorg followed medical orders, had penological reasons (prevent cheeking), and lacked culpable mental state | Court: No. Plaintiff failed to show objective harm or Gorg’s subjective deliberate indifference; facts deemed admitted for defendant |
| Whether Gorg was personally involved in constitutionally infirm treatment decisions | Gorg’s direct act (crushing Lyrica) caused harm | Treatment decisions were made by prescribing medical staff; Gorg acted under orders | Court: No personal involvement for constitutional violation; treatment decisions attributed to others |
| Whether medical treatment rose above negligence to constitutional violation | Medication delays and regimen decisions amounted to deliberate indifference | Treatment provided met the standard of care; plaintiff disagrees with prescribed regimen | Court: Disagreement/negligence only; does not meet Eighth Amendment standard |
| Whether prospective injunctive relief against Gorg is appropriate | Plaintiff sought injunctive relief barring future violations | Gorg retired and plaintiff no longer at the same facility | Court: Denied as moot; injunctive relief not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Reynolds, 316 F.3d 351 (2d Cir. 2003) (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden on movant)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show specific facts creating genuine issue)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue for trial standard)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Hathaway v. Coughlin, 37 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 1994) (deliberate indifference elements)
- Ross v. Kelly, 784 F. Supp. 35 (W.D.N.Y. 1992) (prisoner has no right to choose treatment)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (failure to timely object to magistrate recommendations waives appellate review)