Bass v. Cayuga County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOHANN ALEXANDER BASS,

Plaintiff,

-against- 9:22-CV-1107 (LEK/ML)

CAYUGA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

After commencing this action on October 26, 2022, Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”), pro se

Plaintiff Johann Alexander Bass filed an amended complaint on June 22, 2023, alleging

constitutional violations that occurred while Plaintiff was in pretrial detention at the Cayuga

County Jail (“Cayuga Jail”), Dkt. No. 37 (“Amended Complaint”). Now before the Court is

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 63 (“Motion”). Plaintiff has filed a response to the

Motion, Dkt. No. 68 (“Response”), and Defendants have filed a reply, Dkt. No. 75 (“Reply”).

For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motion is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

The Court assumes familiarity with the facts alleged in the Complaint and Amended

Complaint as detailed in the Court’s sufficiency orders, see Dkt. No. 18 (“February Sufficiency

Order”) at 5–9; Dkt. No. 42 (“September Sufficiency Order”) at 1–2. In the September

Sufficiency Order, this Court found that Counts One and Two of the Amended Complaint

survived sua sponte review. See Sept. Sufficiency Order at 7. Count One alleges a deliberate

indifference claim for delay in medical care (“Medical Care Claim”) against Cayuga County and

Medical Director Adam Duckett (“Duckett”), as well as Nurse Brittany Marquez (“Marquez”),

Nurse Haley Aldrich (“Aldrich”), and Nurse Debra Salato (“Salato”) (collectively, “Nurse

Defendants”). Count Two alleges a deliberate indifference claim for delay in mental health

treatment (“Mental Health Claim”) against Cayuga County, Duckett, and Social Worker Monica

Lacey-Hastings (“Lacey-Hastings”).

III. LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a

“complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that

is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A court must accept as true the factual allegations

contained in a complaint and draw all inferences in favor of a plaintiff. See Allaire Corp. v.

Okumus, 433 F.3d 248, 249–50 (2d Cir. 2006). A complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6) only where it appears that there are not “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Plausibility requires “enough fact[s] to raise a

reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the alleged misconduct].” Id. at

556.

The plausibility standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has

acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Supreme Court

has stated that “the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual

allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

accusation.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Where a court is unable to infer more than

the mere possibility of the alleged misconduct based on the pleading facts, the pleader has not

demonstrated that she is entitled to relief and the action is subject to dismissal. See id. at 678–79.

IV. DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s medical and mental health claims on four

grounds: (1) failure to state a claim against Cayuga County; (2) failure to state a cause of action

for deliberate indifference to a medical or mental health need; (3) the individually named

defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; (4) and failure to allege personal involvement of

the individually named defendants. See Mot. at 9–16.1

A. Failure to State a Claim Against Cayuga County

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a Monell claim against

Cayuga County. See id. at 10. “[A] municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs

a tortfeasor . . . .” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). “Congress did not

intend municipalities to be held liable [under Section 1983] unless action pursuant to official

municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort.” Id. Therefore, local “governments

should be held responsible [under Section 1983] when, and only when, their official policies

cause their employees to violate another person’s constitutional rights.” City of St. Louis v.

Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 122 (1988). As a result, in order for a municipality to be liable under

Section 1983 for acts of a public official, a plaintiff must plausibly allege “that an official policy

of the municipality caused the constitutional injury.” Roe v. City of Waterbury, 542 F.3d 31, 36

(2d Cir. 2008) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690–91). Boilerplate assertions of a municipal policy

or custom are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. See Plair v. City of New York, 789 F.

Supp. 2d 459, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (collecting cases).

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of any municipal policy,

custom, or practice that caused the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Mot. at 10.

1 Page numbers refer to ECF pagination.

However, Plaintiff alleges that Cayuga County is liable “through custom and usage of acts

contributing to delays in medical care.” Am. Compl. at 11. Defendants argue that this passing

reference is not sufficient, as “[t]here is no allegation as to . . . which policies that did not exist

resulted in the violation of [Plaintiff’s] constitutional rights.” Mot. at 9–10. But Plaintiff

specifically alleges that “lack of policies regarding medical screening at the booking stage,

triage, assessment and timeliness of care, lack of adequate health needs request policies and

procedures . . . are the driving force or otherwise contributed to the delay in medical care,” Am.

Compl. at 11. Unlike “boilerplate” references to policies without factual support, Plair, 789 F.

Supp. 2d at 469, Plaintiff alleges the specific policies (or lack thereof) that affected the particular

medical treatment he received, see Am. Compl. at 10–11. The Court finds it plausible that these

specific policies (or lack thereof) could have been responsible for the delay in Plaintiff’s care,

especially since Defendants’ actions are allegedly repeated on multiple occasions. See Am.

Compl. at 10, 12, 14 (alleging the Nurse Defendants saw Plaintiff almost daily and Lacey-

Hastings saw Plaintiff on multiple occasions). At this stage, with due regard to Plaintiff’s pro se

status, Plaintiff has stated claims against Cayuga County. See Bos. v. Suffolk Cnty., New York,

326 F. Supp. 3d 1, 23 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (reading the complaint broadly to incorporate a

sufficiently stated Monell claim).

B. Failure to State a Cause of Action for Deliberate Indifference

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to allege a cause of action for deliberate

indifference for both the Medical Care Claim and the Mental Health Claim. See Mot. at 10–13.

To state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a pretrial detainee must

satisfy a two-pronged test. “The first requirement is objective: ‘the alleged deprivation of

adequate medical care must be “sufficiently serious.”’” Lloyd v. City of New York, 246 F. Supp.

3d 704, 717 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Spavone v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 719 F.3d

127, 139 (2d Cir. 2013)). “Where a plaintiff alleges that inadequate care was provided—instead

of alleging a failure to provide any treatment—the inquiry focuses on ‘the particular risk of harm

faced by a prisoner due to the challenged deprivation of care, rather than the severity of the

prisoner’s underlying medical condition.’” Revels v. Corr. Med. Care, Inc., No. 17-CV-88, 2018

WL 1578157, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2018) (quoting Smith v. Carpenter, 316 F.3d 178, 186

(2d Cir. 2003)).

“The second requirement is subjective . . . .” Lloyd, 246 F. Supp. 3d at 717. Specifically,

a detainee must “allege either that the defendants knew that failing to provide the complained of

medical treatment would pose a substantial risk to his health or that the defendants should have

known that failing to provide the omitted medical treatment would pose a substantial risk to the

detainee’s health.” Charles v. Orange Cnty., 925 F.3d 73, 87 (2d Cir. 2019).

i. Medical Care Claim

Regarding the objective prong for Medical Care Claim, Plaintiff alleges that inadequate

care was provided due to the seventeen-day delay in receiving medication. See Am. Compl. at

10–12. Defendants argue that Plaintiff advising Cayuga Jail personnel that he was having chest

pains does not constitute a serious medical need. See Mot. at 12. Although having asthma is not

considered sufficiently serious, experiencing an asthma attack or asthmatic symptoms can

constitute a serious medical need under the Eighth Amendment. See Ennis v. Davies, No. 87-

CV-1465, 1990 WL 121527, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 1990), on reconsideration, No. 87-CV-

1465, 1991 WL 29172 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 1991), aff’d, 992 F.2d 320 (2d Cir. 1993) (denying

summary judgment because the plaintiff suffered an asthma attack and was not given medication

until later that evening); Patterson v. Lilley, No. 02-CV-6056, 2003 WL 21507345, at *4

(S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2003) (finding the plaintiff merely having asthma is not a serious medical

need when the plaintiff “did not allege any discomfort or any symptoms of an emergent attack”).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that he has asthma and that the Cayuga Jail staff were aware of this. See

Am. Compl. at 11. Plaintiff then alleges that he experienced “extreme chest pains and everytime

[he] breath[ed], coughed, sneezed or laughed, the pain increased causing [him] to show obvious

signs of pain and distress.” Id. at 10. These further allegations involve asthmatic symptoms and

discomfort, which creates a “particular risk of harm” due to the deprivation of medication.

Revels, 2018 WL 1578157 at *4. Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged a serious medical need.

Regarding the subjective prong, Plaintiff alleges the Nurse Defendants were aware of his

condition and delayed his medical care despite being in contact with Plaintiff almost daily. See

Am. Compl. at 12. Plaintiff also alleges that Duckett “was aware of the increased risk to

[Plaintiff’s] health due to him knowing [Plaintiff] ha[s] asthma.” Id. at 11. Duckett’s alleged

awareness of Plaintiff’s asthma is supported by allegations that Duckett “had [Plaintiff’s] blood

drawn” and obtained Plaintiff’s medical records from the local hospital. Id. at 11. Plaintiff

therefore sufficiently alleges that Duckett knew or “should have known that failing to provide

[asthma medication] would pose a substantial risk to [Plaintiff’s] health.” Charles, 925 F.3d at

87. Accordingly, the Court finds at this stage that Plaintiff has stated a deliberate indifference

claim for delay in medical care.

ii. Mental Health Claim

Regarding indifference to Plaintiff’s mental health, a severe anxiety attack can constitute

a serious medical need. See Young v. Choinski, 15 F. Supp. 3d 172, 184 (D. Conn. 2014)

(“[C]ase law within this Circuit recognizes that ‘depression combined with severe anxiety attacks

or suicide attempts is a serious medical need’ in the context of deliberate indifference.”) (citing

Zimmerman v. Burge, No. 06-CV-176, 2009 WL 3111429, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2009)).

Plaintiff’s allegations of “manic episodes” along with allegations of “depression, psychological

abuse, [and] paranoia” sufficiently constitute a serious medical need. Am. Compl. at 16.

Plaintiff also alleges Defendants’ subjective awareness and subsequent indifference to

Plaintiff’s mental health need. Plaintiff claims he “submitted 8–10 requests for mental health

treatment” but they were denied. Id. at 13. Plaintiff states that he won a grievance regarding his

mental health claims—demonstrating that Defendants knew Plaintiff needs proper treatment—

but Defendants still failed to provide proper treatment. See id. at 13. Defendants, however, argue

that Plaintiff “simply disagree[s] with the care that was provided.” Mot. at 12. But Plaintiff’s

allegations go further. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not provide a qualified mental health

professional, and the person they provided—Lacey-Hastings—did not address any of his mental

health concerns but only asked one question about suicide before “wrapping the conversation

up.” Am. Compl. at 14. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges sufficient awareness on behalf of

Defendants. With due regard to Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court finds at this stage that Plaintiff

has stated a claim for deliberate indifference of his mental health need.

C. Qualified Immunity

Defendants argue that Duckett, Marquez, Aldrich, Salato, and Lacey-Hastings

(“Individual Defendants”) are protected by qualified immunity. See Mot. at 13–14. Qualified

immunity protects officials from damages liability if their “conduct ‘does not violate clearly

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11 (2015) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231

(2009)). “‘Clearly established’ means that, at the time of the officer’s conduct, the law was

‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would understand that what he is doing’ is

unlawful.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 63 (2018) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,

563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011)). Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that the challenged

conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the law existing at the time. See Mitchell v. City

of New York, 841 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing Tellier v. Fields, 280 F.3d 69, 84 (2d Cir.

2000)). “The objective reasonableness test is met if officers of reasonable competence could

disagree on the legality of the defendants’ actions.” Green v. Montgomery, 219 F.3d 52, 59 (2d

Cir. 2000) (cleaned up).

Defendants argue that Plaintiff “failed to allege that any of the [Individual Defendants]

knowingly violated the law.” Mot. at 14. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s allegations instead

show it is “objectively reasonable that the [Individual Defendants] believed their actions did not

violate the law.” Id. Defendants, who bear the burden of demonstrating that their conduct was

objectively reasonable, see Mitchell, 841 F.3d at 79, do not cite a single case to support their

assertion that their conduct was objectively reasonable. See Mot. at 13–14; Reply at 10–11.

Furthermore, Defendants do not explain how a seventeen-day delay in providing medication or a

failing to provide a mental health specialist while Plaintiff was “banging [his] head on a cell

door” is objectively reasonable. Am. Compl. at 13. Therefore, the Court finds at this stage that

Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that qualified immunity applies to the

Individual Defendants.

D. Failure to Allege Personal Involvement

Defendants lastly argue that the Individual Defendants did not have the requisite personal

involvement in Plaintiff’s alleged harms. “To sustain a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show that

there was sufficient personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivations on the part of

the defendants.” Zdziebloski v. Town of E. Greenbush, N.Y., 336 F. Supp. 2d 194, 201–02

(N.D.N.Y. 2004) (Kahn, J.) (citing Moffitt v. Town of Brookfield, 950 F.2d 880, 886 (2d Cir.

1991)). “A plaintiff must thus allege a tangible connection between the acts of a defendant and

the injuries suffered.” Bass v. Jackson, 790 F.2d 260, 263 (2d Cir. 1986).

Defendants argue that Duckett is only the medical director at Cayuga Jail, and there is no

allegation of his personal involvement in Plaintiff’s treatment. See Mot. at 15. Regarding the

Medical Care Claim, the Amended Complaint alleges that Duckett was informed of Plaintiff’s

condition and “increased risk to [his] health.” Am. Compl. at 11. Plaintiff states that Duckett was

personally involved in the decision-making process regarding Plaintiff’s care, alleging that

Duckett “had [Plaintiff’s] blood drawn” and unnecessarily delayed treatment of Plaintiff’s

asthma condition. Id. At this stage, with due regard to Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court finds

that Plaintiff has alleged Duckett’s personal involvement in the Medical Care Claim. Regarding

the Mental Health Claim, Plaintiff alleges that Duckett failed to refer Plaintiff to a qualified

mental health doctor even after winning his grievance. See id. at 13–15. Plaintiff states that

“Duckett was also negligent in his duties as Medical Director not requiring a qualified mental

health doctor to be on staff.” Id. at 14. These allegations involve Duckett’s decision-making

regarding Plaintiff directly, rather than as a disengaged supervisor. See Singletary v. Russo, 377

F. Supp. 3d 175, 185–86 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (finding the defendant physician was personally

involved in alleged failure to ensure that prisoner saw a necessary specialist). Therefore, with

due regard to Plaintiff’s pro se status, Plaintiff has alleged Duckett’s personal involvement in the

Mental Health Claim.

Defendants argue that the Nurse Defendants were not personally involved in the alleged

delay in medical care. See Mot. at 15. Specifically, Defendants argue that the allegations that the

Nurse Defendants’ allegedly handled and processed requests for treatment is “conclusory.” Id.

But Plaintiff alleges direct involvement of the Nurse Defendants as they made “daily rounds . . .

during which time [Plaintiff] notified them of [his] extreme pain.” Am. Compl. at 10. The Nurse

Defendants were therefore personally involved because they handled the requests Plaintiff

directly made to them.

Regarding Lacey-Hastings, Defendants argue that Plaintiff “fails to provide any

allegation as to any harm that came to him as a result of her actions or inactions.” Mot. at 15.

This is incorrect, as Plaintiff alleges harm to his mental health that he suffered for sixteen months

because Lacey-Hastings did not refer him to a qualified professional. See Am. Compl. at 14. At

this stage, Plaintiff has alleged Lacey-Hastings’s personal involvement in the Mental Health

Claim.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently alleges the personal involvement

of the Individual Defendants. As the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated claims for deliberate

indifference to his medical and mental health needs, Defendants’ Motion is denied.2

V. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion, Dkt. No. 63, is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all

parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 Plaintiff submits multiple exhibits with his Response. See Resp. at 13–28 (“Exhibits”).

Defendants argue the Court cannot consider the Exhibits. See Reply at 4–6. As the Court need

not review the Exhibits to deny Defendants’ Motion, the Court declines to take judicial notice of

the Exhibits.

DATED: June 13, 2024

Albany, New York

LAWRENCE E. KAHN

United States District Judge

11