Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. McCready

United States District Court, S.D. New York

February 15, 2017

CARL DAVIS, Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH MCCREADY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge

         In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff Carl Davis brings a claim against Defendant Joseph McCready, RPA, alleging that he received constitutionally inadequate medical treatment while incarcerated at Riker's Island between June 15, 2014 and June 20, 2014. Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is GRANTED, and Mr. Davis's second amended complaint is DISMISSED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         When Mr. Davis entered the Robert N. Davoren Complex (“RNDC”), a jail on Riker's Island, on June 15, 2014, he was seen by Defendant Joseph McCready, RPA. ECF No. 111, Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”), ¶ 5. Mr. Davis explained to Defendant that he had extreme pain in his legs and back, foot drop, heart problems, sleeping problems, and breathing problems due to asthma and having been shot in the chest. SAC ¶ 5-6. Mr. Davis requested pain medication for the “excruciating pain” in his legs and back, a special therapeutic mattress for his back and sleeping disorder, and a cane to help him walk. SAC ¶ 6-7. Mr. Davis does not expressly allege whether Defendant ever granted these requests. He alleges only that Defendant “purposely ignor[ed]” his “serious medical needs.” SAC ¶ 8.

         On approximately June 20, 2014, Mr. Davis was transferred to the Brooklyn Detention Center. SAC ¶ 9. Mr. Davis alleges that Defendant failed to document his meeting with Mr. Davis clearly in his medical records before Mr. Davis's transfer to the Brooklyn Detention Center. Id. Mr. Davis asserts that he “[s]hould have immediately received the requested medication, mattress and cane” after the transfer. Id.

         Mr. Davis alleges that Defendant “was fully apprised of [his] medical needs and ignored the risk of ameliorating conditions, extreme pain and debilitating conditions.” SAC ¶ 10. He further alleges that he “suffered heart pain, loss of breath, loss of sleep, intense & extreme pain, emotional distress, and other pain as a result of the injury suffered as a result of defendant's unprofessional care.” SAC ¶ 11.

         Mr. Davis filed his initial complaint on August 5, 2014, bringing claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the RNDC “medical department” and “medical director.” ECF No. 1. Following an order from the Court to identify the specific defendants in the proceeding, Mr. Davis filed a first amended complaint on March 6, 2015, alleging that a number of defendants, including Mr. McCready, had denied him adequate medical treatment. ECF No. 14. On February 22, 2016, the Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and granted Mr. Davis leave to replead no later than March 18, 2016. ECF No. 100.

         Following numerous extensions to accommodate Mr. Davis's transfer to Riverview Correctional Facility, Mr. Davis filed his second amended complaint on June 29, 2016. ECF No. 111. In his second amended complaint, Mr. Davis names only Mr. McCready as a defendant. Id. Defendant McCready filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on August 12, 2016. ECF No. 117. Mr. Davis submitted an affidavit in opposition on November 21, 2016, and Defendant submitted a reply affirmation on December 6, 2016. Dkt Nos. 131, 136.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         “To survive a motion to dismiss, 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)). To meet this plausibility standard, the plaintiff must “plead[ ] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

         When ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court “must accept all allegations in the complaint as true and draw all inferences in the nonmoving party's favor.” LaFaro v. New York Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC, 570 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2009). The Court, however, is not required to credit “mere conclusory statements” or “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A complaint that offers “labels and conclusions” or “naked assertion[s]” without “further factual enhancement” will not survive a motion to dismiss. Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

         Because he is proceeding pro se, the Court must liberally construe Plaintiff's submissions and interpret them “to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original); see also, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed . . . .”) (citation omitted). This mandate “‘applies with particular force when a plaintiff's civil rights are at issue.'” Bell v. Jendell, 980 F.Supp.2d 555, 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Maisonet v. Metro. Hosp. & Health Hosp. Corp., 640 F.Supp.2d 345, 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). However, “the liberal treatment afforded to pro se litigants does not exempt a pro se party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Id. at 559 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Rahman v. Schriro, 22 F.Supp.3d 305, 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (“[D]ismissal of a pro se complaint is nevertheless appropriate where a plaintiff has clearly failed to meet minimum pleading requirements.” (citing Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62, 65 (2d Cir. 1997))).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Claim for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.