Van Epps v. Kelly
3:11-cv-01144
D. Conn.Nov 9, 2011Background
- Van Epps, a state probationer, was supervised by the Court Support Services Division starting May 6, 2009.
- He entered Sierra Center residential housing on May 15, 2009 with Case Manager Kelly coordinating services.
- In June 2009 he began treatment at The Connection Inc.’s Center for the Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior and attended group therapy through Oct 2010.
- In Jan 2010 he was discharged from Sierra Center to a shelter and alleges Cockrell failed to obtain suitable housing.
- He claims Kardal provided inadequate mental health treatment and that all defendants acted under color of state law to deprive him of rights.
- The court sua sponte screened the complaint and dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to plausibly allege deliberate indifference to serious mental health needs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defendants showed deliberate indifference to Van Epps's mental health needs. | Van Epps alleges inadequate mental health care. | Defendants provided ongoing evaluations and counseling; no conscious disregard shown. | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plausibly plead deliberate indifference. |
| Whether the complaint can be amended to state a plausible claim. | Amendment could fix plausibility by detailing conduct. | Amendment would still require plausible deliberate indifference. | Amended complaint allowed, due by Jan 6, 2012; screening will apply again. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to medical needs in custody context)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (gov't duty when restraining individual’s safety)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) (state must provide minimally adequate care for involuntarily confined)
- Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972) (housing/safety not constitutionally guaranteed, but state custody may impose duties)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (liberal construction of pro se complaints; plausibility standard)
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)