Reynolds v. O'Gorman
9:20-cv-00686
N.D.N.Y.Sep 11, 2020Background
- Pro se §1983 suit by Jeremy Reynolds arising from a June 11, 2019 incident at Clinton Correctional Facility: inmates fought in the yard; corrections officers discharged projectiles and/or fled the scene.
- Reynolds alleges he was struck in the face by a projectile (lost a tooth, facial swelling) and later was attacked by ≈20 inmates with weapons, suffering lacerations, broken ribs, and a collapsed lung.
- He was taken to a local hospital, treated (including stitches and treatment for collapsed lung) and housed in the prison infirmary for three days.
- Reynolds received a misbehavior report and, after a hearing presided over by Swenny, was sentenced to 60 days keeplock; he alleges procedural defects and an ignored video.
- The district court previously screened the original complaint, granted IFP, dismissed deficient claims with leave to amend; Reynolds filed an amended complaint adding numerous DOCCS staff.
- The court performed sua sponte screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b): some Eighth Amendment claims survived against specified officers; medical-indifference, equal-protection, and due-process claims were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment — Excessive force | Officers fired projectiles into compliant crowd and struck Reynolds | Officers not personally alleged to have used excessive force except those named; generally deny misconduct | Excessive-force claims allowed to proceed against McShane, Ormsby, Wood, Stone, and Provost |
| Eighth Amendment — Failure to protect | Officers present then fled, leaving yard; Reynolds was subsequently attacked by many inmates | Lack of personal involvement or awareness for many named staff; insufficient facts tying some defendants to the assault | Failure-to-protect claims survive against listed officers/sergeants who were at scene or responded (Ashline, Bomradier, Bola, McIntyre, Siskavich, Christon, Smith, Darras, Clancy, Reese, Baxter, Gonyo, Nephew, Forkey, Carter, Cymbark, Mahan, Randall, King, LeClar, Deltis, McShane, Stone, Wood, Ormsby) |
| Eighth Amendment — Deliberate medical indifference | Officials denied or delayed necessary care after severe injuries | Medical care was provided: emergency room treatment and three days in infirmary; no plausible allegations of intentional denial or interference | Medical-indifference claims dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Fourteenth Amendment — Equal protection | Reynolds treated differently than similarly situated inmates | Complaint lacks facts showing differential treatment or a comparator class | Equal-protection claims dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Fourteenth Amendment — Due process (disciplinary hearing/keeplock) | Swenny and higher officials denied due process at disciplinary hearing; keeplock imposed caused atypical hardship given mental-health status | Pleading lacks details about hearing, evidence, timing, or atypical/greater-than-ordinary conditions of confinement; no facts showing personal involvement by some officials | Due-process claims dismissed for failure to state a claim; disciplinary-officer Swenny and supervisory officials O'Gorman, Cuomo, etc., dismissed as defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) (liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (Eighth Amendment excessive-force standard)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (force in prison contexts analyzed under Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard; knowledge of substantial risk)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (Eighth Amendment limits on conditions of confinement)
- Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698 (2d Cir. 1998) (elements of deliberate medical indifference claim)
- Hathaway v. Coughlin, 99 F.3d 550 (2d Cir. 1996) (objective seriousness element explained)
- Blyden v. Mancusi, 186 F.3d 252 (2d Cir. 1999) (subjective culpability/wantonness for medical indifference)