Sawabini v. McConn
5:20-cv-01157
N.D.N.Y.Mar 9, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Lutfallah T. Sawabini (82) sued three physicians alleging disability discrimination under the ADA based on purportedly improper surgery, early discharge, and denial/delay of pain medication.
- Complaint was long (194 pages), largely incoherent, and supplemented by multiple additional filings.
- Defendants McConn and Catania moved to dismiss (raising improper service and failure to state a claim); Margie moved for judgment on the pleadings.
- Court reviewed the complaint and additional submissions under liberal pro se standards but noted plaintiff’s prior federal-court experience.
- The court concluded the allegations sounded like medical malpractice, not ADA/Rehabilitation Act discrimination, because there were no plausible allegations that treatment decisions were made for non-medical, discriminatory reasons.
- Court granted the defendants’ motions, denied plaintiff’s motions, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint pleads an ADA/Rehab Act discrimination claim arising from medical treatment | Sawabini alleges discrimination via denial/delay of medications, wrongful procedure, early discharge | Defendants assert decisions were medical judgments; allegations at most medical malpractice | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege treatment decisions were made for non‑medical, discriminatory reasons (ADA/Rehab Act claim fails) |
| How pro se status affects pleading review | Seeks liberal construction and solicitude as a pro se litigant | Defendants note plaintiff’s prior federal litigation and the complaint’s incoherence | Court applied liberal standards but found the complaint unintelligible and not salvable |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Implicit request via filings for relief or repleading | Opposed or not meaningfully supported | Denied — amendment would be unlikely to be productive; dismissal with prejudice |
| Adequacy of service of process | (No clear, adequate service allegations in record) | Defendants moved on improper service grounds (referred to Rule 12(b)(5)) | Service challenge noted, but court resolved case on merits and granted motions to dismiss/judgment on pleadings |
Key Cases Cited
- McGugan v. Aldana-Bernier, 752 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2014) (medical treatment decisions based on medical judgment—even if mistaken—are not disability discrimination under Rehabilitation Act/ADA)
- Ahlers v. Rabinowitz, 684 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2012) (pro se complaints are construed liberally with special solicitude)
- Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509 (2d Cir. 2013) (pro se filings must be interpreted to raise the strongest claims they suggest)
- Dickerson v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d 732 (2d Cir. 2010) (plaintiff bears burden to prove adequate service of process)
- Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2005) (discussing burden on plaintiff regarding service challenges)
- Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246 (7th Cir. 1996) (ADA does not create a remedy for medical malpractice)