White v. Koenigsmann
9:14-cv-00917
| N.D.N.Y. | Mar 4, 2016Background
- Willie White (pro se) sued Dr. Carl J. Koenigsmann, Chief Medical Officer for DOCCS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs while incarcerated at Mid-State CF related to a delayed cataract extraction.
- White submitted sick-call requests in August 2013, saw an ophthalmologist multiple times, was evaluated for cataract surgery, and experienced worsening vision; a February 2014 follow-up did not occur.
- White wrote letters of complaint to DOCCS officials, including Koenigsmann; Koenigsmann either referred complaints for investigation or responded that an investigation had occurred but could not disclose records to a third party without a release.
- White was informed of an eye appointment for May 12, 2014 and told the surgery was scheduled for May 30, 2014, but he was released from custody on May 22, 2014 before the procedure.
- Koenigsmann moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing lack of personal involvement; the magistrate judge recommended dismissal and the district court adopted that recommendation and granted the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Koenigsmann was personally involved in deliberate-indifference to serious medical needs | White alleged Koenigsmann received complaints and failed to ensure surgery occurred | Koenigsmann asserted only that he received letters, referred them for investigation, and responded — insufficient personal involvement | Dismissal: referral/letters alone do not plausibly plead personal involvement |
| Whether pleadings met Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard | White argued facts show worsening vision and delayed surgery, supporting an Eighth Amendment claim | Defendant argued the complaint lacked plausible allegations linking him to unconstitutional conduct | Court held complaint failed to plead factual content permitting a reasonable inference of Koenigsmann's liability |
| Whether pro se status changes pleading requirement | White relied on lenient construction of pro se pleadings | Defendant relied on applicable pleading standards nonetheless | Court applied liberal construction but still required plausible factual allegations; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether failure to object to magistrate's R&R waived review | N/A (no objection filed) | N/A | Court noted no objections and reviewed for clear error, adopted R&R in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Sealey v. Giltner, 116 F.3d 47 (2d Cir.) (supervisor's referral of complaint and response about investigation insufficient to show personal involvement)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth; plausibility required)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se complaints construed liberally)
- Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98 (failure to object to magistrate judge's R&R waives appellate review)
- Garvin v. Goord, 212 F. Supp. 2d 123 (W.D.N.Y.) (same principle as Sealey regarding supervisor responses)