Nielsen v. Bloomberg
Filing
OPINION, reversing the decision to deny leave to amend and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings, by ALK, DJ, CJS, FILED.[1155965] [12-4313]--[Edited 02/13/2014 by RO]
Case: 12-4313
Document: 60
Page: 1
02/13/2014
1155965
11
12‐4313‐pr
Nielsen v. Rabin
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
_______________
5
6
August Term, 2013
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Submitted: November 19, 2013
Decided: February 13, 2014)
Docket No. 12‐4313‐pr
_______________
CHARLES NIELSEN
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
– v. –
ELAINE A. RABIN M.D.,
Defendant‐Appellee,
BILL DE BLASIO, MAYOR‐‐NYC; MICHAEL A. STOCKER M.D. CHAIRPERSON‐NYC‐
HHC; CHRISTOPHER CONSTANTINO, EXEC.DIR.ELMHURST HOSP.; SYLVIA
TSCHENYAVSKY M.D.,
_______________
Before: KEARSE, JACOBS, AND STRAUB, Circuit Judges.
_______________
Defendants.*
The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption of this case to
conform to the listing of the parties shown above. Mayor de Blasio has been
substituted for Mayor Bloomberg pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43.
*
Case: 12-4313
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Document: 60
Page: 2
02/13/2014
1155965
11
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Eric N. Vitaliano, Judge) granting the defendant’s motion to
dismiss and denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. We hold that
amendment would not be futile and that leave to amend should have been
granted. Accordingly, we REVERSE the decision to deny leave to amend and
REMAND to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
Judge JACOBS dissents in a separate opinion.
_______________
CHARLES NIELSEN, pro se, Plaintiff‐Appellant, Ridgewood, N.Y.
TAHIRIH SADRIEH, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Edward F.
X. Hart, on the brief) for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation
Counsel of the City of New York, New York, N.Y., for
Defendant‐Appellee.
_______________
STRAUB, Circuit Judge:
Pro se plaintiff Charles Nielsen brought suit against defendant Dr. Elaine
20
A. Rabin, among others, under the Fourteenth Amendment for deliberate
21
indifference to his serious medical needs. The District Court (Eric N. Vitaliano,
22
Judge) dismissed the complaint on the ground that Nielsen did not adequately
23
allege an element of his deliberate indifference claim: that Dr. Rabin had a
24
sufficiently culpable state of mind. The court also denied Nielsen leave to amend
25
his complaint because additional allegations in Nielsen’s brief in opposition to
2
Case: 12-4313
Document: 60
Page: 3
02/13/2014
1155965
11
1
Dr. Rabin’s motion to dismiss did not cure the deficiencies in his complaint.
2
This, the court reasoned, showed that amendment would be futile.
3
We conclude that the allegations in the complaint and the opposition brief,
4
taken together, sufficiently set forth the mental state element of the claim.
5
Accordingly, amendment would not be futile, and Nielsen should have been
6
granted leave to amend. We therefore REVERSE the decision to deny leave to
7
amend and REMAND to the District Court for further proceedings consistent
8
with this opinion.
9
BACKGROUND
10
11
The allegations recited below are taken from the complaint, and we
assume they are true for the purposes of this appeal.
12
Nielsen was beaten by members of the New York City Police Department.
13
His collarbone was fractured, and he sustained a SLAP type labral tear.1 Nielsen
14
also had injuries to his face, ultimately leaving permanent scarring and requiring
SLAP is an acronym for “Superior Labrum from Anterior to Posterior” – a
specific type of labral tear that occurs at the point where the tendon of the biceps
muscle inserts on the labrum. See Jonathan Cluett, M.D., SLAP Tear: What is a
SLAP tear?, ABOUT.COM ORTHOPEDICS (updated March 17, 2013),
http://orthopedics.about.com/cs/generalshoulder/a/slap.htm.
1
3
Case: 12-4313
Document: 60
Page: 4
02/13/2014
1155965
11
1
two nose surgeries. Additionally, he became legally deaf in one ear and has
2
reduced hearing in the other.
3
After the beating, Nielsen was taken to the emergency room in a
4
wheelchair where he complained of severe pain in his shoulder and back and a
5
broken nose. There, he was evaluated by Dr. Rabin and Dr. Sylvia
6
Tschenyavsky. Even though Nielsen screamed when his shoulder was lightly
7
touched, the doctors reported that his level of pain and discomfort was low: a
8
two out of ten. The doctors diagnosed Nielsen as having “mild bruising” and
9
suggested that he was “malingering” – fabricating or exaggerating his
10
symptoms. No X‐rays, CT‐scans or MRIs were performed, and no significant
11
treatment was provided. The doctors recommended only that Nielsen be
12
reevaluated within a week.
13
Nielsen alleged all the above facts in his complaint. Rabin moved to
14
dismiss, and Nielsen filed a brief in opposition, arguing that he had stated a
15
claim for deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment. In that brief,
16
Nielsen set forth an additional allegation: that the officers who brought him to
17
the emergency room told Dr. Rabin that he had attacked a female police officer
18
and that he should be ignored and left alone. According to Nielsen, no such
4
Case: 12-4313
Document: 60
Page: 5
02/13/2014
1155965
11
1
attack actually occurred. Nielsen also alleged that Dr. Rabin allowed herself to
2
be influenced by the officers.
3
The District Court concluded that Nielsen’s complaint did not state a claim
4
for deliberate indifference because he did not adequately allege that Dr. Rabin
5
acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. The court also denied leave to
6
amend on the ground that amendment would be futile. The court reasoned that
7
the complaint still would not state a claim even if augmented by the new
8
allegations contained in Nielsen’s brief. Ultimately, the court dismissed
9
Nielsen’s federal claims with prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental
10
11
jurisdiction over any state law claims. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
12
“Generally, leave to amend should be freely given, and a pro se litigant in
13
particular should be afforded every reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that
14
he has a valid claim.” Matima v. Celli, 228 F.3d 68, 81 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal
15
quotation marks and citation omitted). “A pro se complaint should not be
16
dismissed without the Court granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal
17
reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.”
18
Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal brackets and
5
Case: 12-4313
Document: 60
Page: 6
02/13/2014
1155965
11
1
quotation marks omitted). However, “leave to amend a complaint may be
2
denied when amendment would be futile.” Tocker v. Philip Morris Cos., 470 F.3d
3
481, 491 (2d Cir. 2006). “When the denial of leave to amend is based on . . . a
4
determination that amendment would be futile, a reviewing court conducts a de
5
novo review.” Hutchison v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., 647 F.3d 479, 490 (2d Cir.
6
2011).
7
The District Court ruled that amendment was futile because, even
8
considering the facts set forth in the opposition to the motion to dismiss, Nielsen
9
did not adequately allege the mental state element of his deliberate indifference
10
11
claim. We disagree.
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
12
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
13
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks
14
omitted). “In addressing the sufficiency of a complaint we accept as true all
15
factual allegations and draw from them all reasonable inferences; but we are not
16
required to credit conclusory allegations or legal conclusions couched as factual
17
allegations.” Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 82, 94 (2d Cir. 2013). Accordingly,
6
Case: 12-4313
Document: 60
Page: 7
02/13/2014
1155965
11
1
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
2
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
3
“The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement . . . .”
4
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] well‐pleaded complaint may
5
proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of the facts alleged is
6
improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.”2 Bell Atl. Corp. v.
7
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
8
“Where, as here, the complaint was filed pro se, it must be construed
9
liberally to raise the strongest arguments it suggests. Nonetheless, a pro se
10
complaint must state a plausible claim for relief.” Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119,
11
124 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).
12
13
In this case, the allegations in the complaint and the opposition brief
sufficiently set forth the mental state element of his claim – that “the charged
2
The dissent’s belief that we do not appreciate that this is a personal claim
against Dr. Rabin boils down to an argument that the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure should apply differently based on the financial resources of the
parties. The “rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in
the United States district courts . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. We require the same
“short and plain statement of the claim” for everyone who comes before us, no
matter their net worth or calling in life. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
7
Case: 12-4313
Document: 60
Page: 8
02/13/2014
1155965
11
1
official . . . act with a sufficiently culpable state of mind,” Salahuddin v. Goord, 467
2
F.3d 263, 280 (2d Cir. 2006). We have described this mental state element in some
3
detail: “In medical‐treatment cases not arising from emergency situations, the
4
official’s state of mind need not reach the level of knowing and purposeful
5
infliction of harm; it suffices if the plaintiff proves that the official acted with
6
deliberate indifference to inmate health.” Id. “Deliberate indifference is a mental
7
state equivalent to subjective recklessness . . . . This mental state requires that the
8
charged official act or fail to act while actually aware of a substantial risk that
9
serious inmate harm will result.”3 Id. (internal citation omitted).
10
Reading the pro se complaint and opposition brief liberally, Nielsen
11
sufficiently alleged the required mental state, especially considering that
12
“intent is rarely susceptible to direct proof.” See Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150,
13
163 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing discriminatory intent in an equal protection case).
The deliberate indifference claim in Salahuddin was based on the Eighth
Amendment. 467 F.3d at 279. Here, Nielsen’s deliberate indifference claim is
based on the Fourteenth Amendment because his claim arises in the context of
pretrial arrest and detainment. See Caiozzo v. Koreman, 581 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir.
2009). However, this distinction is not material because “[c]laims for deliberate
indifference . . . should be analyzed under the same standard irrespective of
whether they are brought under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at
72.
3
8
Case: 12-4313
Document: 60
Page: 9
02/13/2014
1155965
11
1
According to Nielsen: Officers told Dr. Rabin not to treat him because he had
2
attacked a female officer, and Dr. Rabin allowed herself to be influenced by those
3
statements. Dr. Rabin then only minimally examined Nielsen, despite his
4
complaints of severe pain from significant injuries. She also reported that
5
Nielsen was in a low amount of pain even though accepting his allegations as
6
true, he had, inter alia, a SLAP type labral tear and a broken collar bone, and he
7
screamed when his shoulder was touched lightly. Her only recommendation
8
was that Nielsen be reevaluated.
9
In concluding that Nielsen should not be granted leave to file an amended
10
complaint, the District Court relied on medical records proffered by the
11
defendants, which it regarded as refuting Nielsen’s new assertions of statements
12
by police officers inducing deliberate indifference on the part of Dr. Rabin. In so
13
doing, the court inappropriately resolved issues of fact. The court was not
14
entitled to rely on the medical records to conclude that granting leave to amend
15
would be futile.4
The dissent also relies on these medical records without appreciating that the
complaint relied on the records only to show what treatment Nielsen received at
the hospital, not for the truth of their descriptions of his actual condition or
complaints of pain. The medical records’ description of his complaints is only
4
9
Case: 12-4313
1
Document: 60
Page: 10
02/13/2014
1155965
11
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . .
2
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
3
sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. We would love to live in a world where it is
4
implausible for a doctor to disregard her oath and refuse to treat a patient she
5
believed had attacked a female officer – just as we would love to live in a world
6
where it is implausible for an employer to be so irrational as to refuse to hire a
7
qualified applicant because of the applicant’s skin color. Unfortunately, we do
8
not.5 Taking the allegations in Nielsen’s complaint and his opposition brief as
9
true, Nielsen can plausibly allege that Dr. Rabin acted with a sufficiently
10
culpable state of mind.
the defendants’ version of the events. Nielsen asserts that he had suffered the
serious injuries described above and asserts, as the dissent acknowledges, that he
complained of being in “severe pain.” By assuming that the records are true
where they contradict the allegations in the complaint, the dissent turns the Rule
12(b)(6) standard on its head.
5
The dissent’s analogy to a criminal defense attorney tanking his own case
highlights the danger of treating allegations that we may suspect and hope are
false as “implausible.” This conduct does occur. For example, in State v. Tucker,
the defendant’s post‐conviction relief counsel “deliberately sabotaged” his case
because he felt that his client, who had been sentenced to death, deserved to die
and should be executed for his crimes. 353 N.C. 277, 277‐78 (2000); see also The
North Carolina State Bar v. David B. Smith, 02 DHC 14, ¶ 12 (Disciplinary Hearing
Comm’n of the N.C. State Bar Feb. 11, 2003), available at
http://www.ncbar.gov/orders/volume%205/06050395.pdf.
10
Case: 12-4313
Document: 60
Page: 11
02/13/2014
1155965
11
1
CONCLUSION
2
If Nielsen’s complaint were amended to include the allegations in his
3
opposition to the motion to dismiss, the complaint would sufficiently set forth
4
the mental state element of his deliberate indifference claim. Thus, amendment
5
would not be futile. We therefore REVERSE the decision to deny leave to amend
6
and REMAND to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this
7
opinion.
11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?