Santos v. Wood
9:20-cv-00421
| N.D.N.Y. | Sep 15, 2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff Francisco Santos, an incarcerated person, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and First Amendment retaliation based on medical care at multiple NY correctional facilities.
- Court previously granted IFP, severed and transferred claims arising at Elmira/Attica/Southport to the Western District, and dismissed Clinton and Auburn claims with leave to amend.
- In his Amended Complaint Santos reasserted medical indifference claims against facility medical staff and supervisory defendants (Annucci, Morley, Snider), added allegations that staff refused specialists’ directives and enforced an “unwritten policy” denying pain meds, and alleged retaliation by canceling pain-clinic follow‑ups.
- The Court evaluated timeliness for Clinton claims (three‑year limitations), supervisory personal‑involvement under Colon factors, the sufficiency of medical‑indifference allegations at Auburn, and the retaliation claim.
- Result: the Amended Complaint was accepted for filing but all claims were dismissed (official‑capacity monetary claims already barred by Eleventh Amendment; remaining claims dismissed for failure to state a claim).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment - official‑capacity monetary damages | Santos seeks money damages from DOCCS officials in their official capacities. | Official‑capacity §1983 monetary claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. | Official‑capacity monetary claims are dismissed with prejudice (Eleventh Amendment bar). |
| Eighth Amendment (Clinton C.F.) — timeliness | Santos contends limitations tolled because he only learned full extent of injuries after 2019 CT and was misled about scheduling. | Defendants argue the claim accrued in Dec 2015 (denial of treatment) and plaintiff knew of the harm; no non‑conclusory fraud or concealment shown. | Claims arising before March 26, 2017 are untimely; tolling not shown. Timely Clinton claims also fail for lack of pleaded supervisory personal involvement. |
| Eighth Amendment (Clinton & Auburn) — supervisory liability/personal involvement | Santos alleges supervisors authorized/allowed an unwritten policy, failed to remediate, and failed to supervise, causing continued denial of care. | Defendants contend allegations are conclusory, lack specifics about orders, policies, dates, or ongoing harms that supervisors could remedy. | Supervisory claims dismissed: plaintiff failed to plead facts satisfying Colon factors (direct participation, remedy, policy, gross negligence, deliberate indifference). Auburn medical claims independently fail because record shows ongoing treatment and no plausible denial of care. |
| First Amendment retaliation | Santos asserts grievances prompted cancellation of follow‑up pain‑clinic appointments (retaliatory animus). | Defendants note plaintiff was seen by a pain‑clinic specialist in Jan 2020 and that plaintiff pleads no facts showing which appointments were cancelled, when, or causal motive. | Retaliation claim dismissed for lack of non‑conclusory facts and absence of causal link; record belies alleged adverse action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilder v. Va. Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498 (1990) (§1983 creates procedure, not substantive rights)
- Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 1993) (procedural framing of §1983 claims)
- Connolly v. McCall, 254 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2001) (accrual: claim accrues when plaintiff knows or should know of harm)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) (five‑part framework for supervisory liability)
- Terebesi v. Torreso, 764 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2014) (who qualifies as a direct participant)
- Mount Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (causation/motivating factor in retaliation claims)
- Gill v. Pidlypchak, 389 F.3d 379 (2d Cir. 2004) (standards for prisoner retaliation claims)
- Dawes v. Walker, 239 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2001) (prisoner retaliation claims require careful scrutiny)
- Flaherty v. Coughlin, 713 F.2d 10 (2d Cir. 1983) (conclusory retaliation allegations may be dismissed)
- Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2009) (vague supervisory allegations insufficient)
- Jackson v. Burke, 256 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (limits on ‘failure to remedy’ theory of liability)
- Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636 (2d Cir. 2007) (equitable tolling standards)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (pleading standards context cited re: retaliation dismissal authority)