Slip Opinion
N.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Alonzo Ross, a New York State inmate, sued DOCCS medical staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and First Amendment retaliation; cross-motions for summary judgment were filed.
- Relevant care occurred at Mid-State Correctional Facility (Apr 2013–Feb 2014). Ross had chronic conditions including neuropathy, severe L5–S1 degenerative disc disease, diabetes, hypertension, and later diagnosed multi-vessel coronary disease requiring angioplasty in Dec 2013.
- Treatment at Mid‑State included discontinuation/tapering of MS Contin (narcotic), prescriptions of Neurontin and Naproxen, provision of back brace, asthma treatment with albuterol, and diagnostic referrals (neurology, EEG, MRI).
- Key disputed events: (1) October 21, 2013 discontinuation of Neurontin for alleged ‘‘cheeking’’ (Ross says medication was dissolved, so cheeking impossible); (2) earlier reduction of Neurontin while in SHU; (3) discontinuation of MS Contin and denial of other narcotics (medical judgment defended by clinicians); (4) misbehavior reports by nurses after argumentative encounters.
- Court found genuine factual dispute only as to discontinuation of Neurontin by Nurse Practitioner Ferguson and Dr. Mannava (possible deliberate indifference/retaliation); all other claims (including heart‑care claims, asthma care, cane vs. back brace, MS Contin discontinuation, and most retaliation claims) were resolved for defendants. Defendant Koenigsmann (CMO) was dismissed for lack of personal involvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to chronic pain (discontinuation of MS Contin/denial of other narcotics) | Ross: discontinuing MS Contin and denying other narcotics left him inadequately treated for chronic pain. | Clinicians: discontinuing narcotics was medically justified (addiction/side effects); alternative non‑narcotic treatment (Neurontin, Naproxen) appropriate. | Denied relief to Ross — difference of medical opinion does not amount to deliberate indifference; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for discontinuation of Neurontin (alleged cheeking) | Ross: Neurontin was dissolved so cheeking was impossible; discontinuation caused withdrawal, worsened pain, impaired ambulation — created a triable issue of deliberate indifference and possible retaliatory motive. | Defendants: discontinuation was a medical/security decision after documented misuse; a medical judgment. | Court found a genuine dispute of material fact on both objective and subjective prongs; summary judgment denied as to Ferguson and Dr. Mannava on this claim. |
| Eighth Amendment for chest pain / heart disease / post‑angioplasty care | Ross: repeatedly complained of chest pain which was ignored, leading to delayed cardiac care. | Defendants: records show chest complaints to non‑defendant staff; when Ross reported chest pain in Dec 2013, defendants ordered EKG, hospital transfer, catheterization and appropriate post‑op care; no prior complaints to these defendants. | Court granted summary judgment for defendants on all heart‑related deliberate indifference claims (no deprivation or deliberate indifference). |
| First Amendment retaliation (grievances and seeking medical care; misbehavior reports) | Ross: discontinuation of medications and misbehavior reports were retaliatory responses to grievances and requests for care. | Defendants: actions were motivated by legitimate medical judgments, security concerns, or disruptive/argumentative conduct; lack of causal link or insufficient evidence. | Most retaliation claims dismissed; factual dispute remains only tied to the Neurontin discontinuation as to Dr. Mannava (no causal proof for others). Qualified immunity bars some retaliation claims (e.g., no clearly established right to request medical care). |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (subjective deliberate indifference: deliberate disregard standard)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (PLRA exhaustion applies to all inmate suits about prison life)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (proper exhaustion requires compliance with procedural rules)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity analytical framework)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity prong sequence advisory)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (objective reasonableness standard for qualified immunity)
- Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (analysis of "serious medical condition" and delays/interruption in treatment)
- Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698 (factors for seriousness of medical need; medical malpractice vs. deliberate indifference)