Rush v. Fisher, 1:13-cv-00191

Background

Rush, a pro se inmate, sues multiple DOCCS officials and medical departments for alleged constitutional violations related to denied medical treatment across several facilities.
The action proceeds under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and also raises New York State constitutional claims; medical departments themselves are not proper § 1983 defendants.
Defendants move to dismiss for improper venue and failure to state a claim; several named individuals who were not served are dismissed without prejudice.
Allegations trace treatment denial from Greenhaven (2000–2001) to Southport, Attica, Sing Sing, Downstate, Auburn, Shawangunk, Eastern, and Coxsackie, with multiple transfers and alleged suspensions of prior medications and aids.
Key events include denial of Percocet, interruptions of onion-free diets, back braces, and pain management by various staff, and alleged retaliatory misbehavior reports at Eastern and related disciplinary actions.
The court adopts a liberal reading for a pro se complaint but declines to infer facts not pleaded, and ultimately narrows claims based on personal involvement, statute of limitations, and venue considerations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal involvement of Fischer and Wright	Fischer and Wright directly or indirectly caused denials by medical staff.	Fischer and Wright merely directed or referred to staff; no personal involvement shown.	Claims against Fischer and Wright are dismissed for lack of personal involvement.
Statute of limitations on pre-2005 claims	Continuing violation doctrine tolls claims for ongoing denial of medical care.	No continuing violation due to discrete acts and long gaps; time-barred.	Claims arising from 2004–2005 events are time-barred; continuing violation doctrine does not apply.
Due process and retaliation for misbehavior reports	Misbehavior reports and disciplinary actions violated due process and were retaliatory.	Inmates have limited due process rights in disciplinary matters; conclusory allegations insufficient.	Due process and retaliation claims against Bryant, Jandreau, and Pingotti are abandoned/dismissed.
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs	Staff’s denial and alteration of treatment and diets showed deliberate indifference.	Discretion in medical judgment and treatment decisions does not establish deliberate indifference.	Certain claims (e.g., denial of Percocet by Nurse Gutouski) fail; others (e.g., Jandreau's diet denial) fail to meet Eighth Amendment standard; transfer consideration remains for remaining claims.
Venue and transfer to Western District of New York	Venue should remain in Southern District; all defendants are NY state entities.	Remaining claims arise in Western District, and transfer promotes convenience and justice.	The case is transferred to the Western District of New York; venue in SDNY is resolved by transfer.

Key Cases Cited

Green v. Bauvi, 46 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 1995) (no respondeat superior liability in § 1983 claims; personal involvement required)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (supervisory liability requires policy or custom or direct involvement)
Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; guards against bare recitals of elements)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard; must plead enough to state a claim for relief)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (establishes need for serious medical need and adequate care)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective recklessness; knowledge of risk)
Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) (Colon factors for supervisory liability post-Iqbal)
Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 857 (2d Cir. 1997) (inmate’s right to be free from false misbehavior reports not guaranteed)
Robles v. Coughlin, 725 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1983) (denial of nutritionally adequate food may violate Eighth Amendment)
Johnson v. Wright, 412 F.3d 398 (2d Cir. 2005) (two-prong Eighth Amendment standard for medical indifference (objective/subjective))
Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698 (2d Cir. 1998) (medical judgment not necessarily deliberate indifference)
Smith v. Carpenter, 316 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2003) (plausibility of a medical indifference claim requires more than mere disagreement)