United States District Court, N.D. New York
MATTISON Clinton Correctional Facility P.O.
DECISION AND ORDER
J. McAVOY SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Ernest Mattison commenced this action by filing a pro se
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section
1983"), together with an application to proceed in forma
pauperis ("IFP"). Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl.");
Dkt. No. 12 ("IFP Application"). By Decision and
Order filed February 21, 2018, plaintiff's IFP
Application was granted but following review of the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b), some of plaintiff's claims and
defendants were dismissed and the Court directed service and
a response for the claims that survived sua sponte review.
Dkt. No. 13 (the "February 2018 Order").
before the Court is (1) plaintiff's amended complaint,
wherein plaintiff also requests appointment of counsel, and
(2) plaintiff's letter motion requesting that the Court
consider certain documents in support of his claims. Dkt. No.
20 ("Am. Compl."); Dkt. No. 17 ("Letter
original complaint, plaintiff asserted claims arising while
he was in the custody of the New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") at
Clinton Correctional Facility ("Clinton C.F.").
See generally Compl.
complaint was liberally construed to assert the following
claims: (1) Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims
against defendants Johnson, Calley, John Doe Director of
Dental Care ("Director John Doe") and Medical
Escort Officer John Doe ("Officer John Doe"); and
(2) Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims against
defendants Johnson, Calley, Corrections Officer John Doe, and
Director John Doe. See February 2018 Order at 6.
review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court
dismissed without prejudice plaintiff's Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection claims against all of the
defendants, as well as plaintiff's Eighth Amendment
medical indifference claims against Director John Doe and
Officer John Doe. See February 2018 Order at 8-14.
Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims
against defendants Johnson and Calley were found to survive
sua sponte review and to require a response. Id. at
8-9. The Court dismissed Director John Doe and Officer John
Doe as defendants from the action without prejudice.
Id. at 15.
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and is an inmate
suing government employees, his amended complaint must be
reviewed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Review of the Amended Complaint
legal standard governing the dismissal of a pleading for
failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) was discussed at
length in the February 2018 Order and it will not be restated
in this Decision and Order. See February 2018 Order
amended complaint is substantially the same as his original
complaint with minor exceptions. Compare Compl.
with Am. Compl. First, the amended complaint
includes some additional allegations, with attached exhibits,
mostly in support of plaintiff's claims against Director
John Doe. See generally, Am. Compl. Second, the
amended complaint deletes all of the Fourteenth Amendment
claims, as well as the Eighth Amendment claim against
defendant Corrections Officer John Doe. Id. The
remainder of the amended complaint asserts the same Eighth
Amendment medical indifference claims that were set forth in
the original complaint, including the medical indifference
claim against Director John Doe that was previously dismissed
by the February 2018 Order. Id. For a more complete
statement of plaintiff's claims, refer to the amended
Director John Doe
February 2018 Order, the Court dismissed without prejudice
plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim
against Director John Doe based on a finding that the
original complaint failed to allege facts plausibly
suggesting that Director John Doe was personally involved in
the alleged inadequate dental treatment plaintiff has
received. See February 2018 Order at 9-10.
Specifically, the Court stated that there were "no facts
alleged in the complaint which plausibly suggest that
defendant Director John Doe knew that plaintiff sought
medical treatment yet ...