Sonberg v. Niagara County Jail Medical Department Head
1:08-cv-00364
W.D.N.Y.Jun 7, 2013Background
- Plaintiff filed §1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs at Niagara County Jail; court granted summary judgment against him in 2012; plaintiff appeals via Rule 60(b) reconsideration motion.
- Plaintiff submitted medical records and VA correspondence to support his claims about medication verification and delays.
- On March 17, 2008 Aikin reviewed chart, approved OTC meds, and directed VA verification; Johnson (RN) took history and examined plaintiff.
- On March 18, 2008 Quigley (RN) evaluated plaintiff; no withdrawal symptoms noted and plaintiff denied self-harm.
- On March 19, 2008 plaintiff was found unresponsive; treated, transported to hospital; VA records later reviewed and medications ordered; plaintiff transferred to state custody on March 24, 2008.
- Court addresses merits of Rule 60(b) motion and determines grounds limited to 60(b)(3) (fraud/misrepresentation); court denies motion and closes case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 60(b)(3) relief is warranted for alleged fraud | Plaintiff claims Aikin/Johnson/Quigley submitted fraudulent affidavits | No material misrepresentations established by evidence | Denied; no clear and convincing fraud shown |
| Whether alleged lack of medical visits affected outcome | Plaintiff denied visiting on March 17-18, 2008 | Visits documented by affidavits; no deficiency altering outcome | Denied; visits supported by records; no material impact on judgment |
| Whether exhaustion defense excused or reargued | Argues exhaustion should be excused | Improper to relitigate; no new controlling law | Denied; argument rejected under Rule 60(b) |
| ADA relief argument | Plaintiff seeks ADA relief | Action not under ADA; no ADA violation pleaded | Denied; not underlying or supported by facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (strict standard for Rule 60(b) relief; reconsideration limited to overlooked matters)
- Mendell v. Gollust, 909 F.2d 724 (2d Cir. 1990) (exceptional circumstances required for 60(b) relief)
- Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986) (exceptional circumstances required for 60(b) relief)
- Fleming v. New York Univ., 865 F.2d 478 (2d Cir. 1989) (Rule 60(b)(3) requires clear and convincing evidence of misrepresentation)
- State St. Bank and Trust Co. v. Inversiones Errazuriz Limitada, 374 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) (purpose and limits of Rule 60(b) relief)
- Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Entm't Corp., 286 F.Supp.2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (fraud/misrepresentation standard in 60(b) movants)
- Hathaway v. Coughlin, 37 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 1994) (delay in treatment not itself a basis for 60(b) relief)
- Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Deloach, 708 F.Supp. 1371 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (contextual authority cited regarding Rule 60(b))