Harrington v. Vadlamudi et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 41 ) is ACCEPTED to the extent it recommends granting defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 35 ) all ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against defendants Dr . Vadlamudi and Sandra Martin Smith. ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 35 ) all ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against defendants Dr. Vadlamudi and Sandra Martin Smith is GRANTED. ORDERED that the Report-Recommendati on (Dkt. No. 41 ) is otherwise REJECTED. ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 35 ) plaintiff's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against defendant Marcy Correctional Facility is DENIED. ORDERED that the those por tions of the second amended complaint that continue to assert ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against Dr. Vadlamudi and Sandra Martin Smith are stricken. ORDERED that the second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 45 ) is otherwise accepted as filed. ORDERED that defendants' letter request (Dkt. No. 46 ) is DENIED to the extent they request that the Court strike the second amended complaint. ORDERED that defendants' letter request (Dkt. No. 46 ) is GRANTED to the extent they seek additional time to file a response to the second amended complaint. ORDERED that defendants shall respond to the second amended complaint on or before August 4, 2015. ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to plaintiff along with copies of the unpublished decisions cited in this decision. Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 7/21/15.{order and unpublished decisions served via regular mail on plaintiff} (nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________________________
DAVID HARRINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

9:13-cv-795 (BKS/RFT)

DR. VADLAMUDI, Doctor, Marcy Correctional Facility,
SANDRA MARTIN SMITH, Nurse Administrator, Marcy
Correctional Facility, MARCY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
David Harrington
Pro se Plaintiff
Fort Edward, NY
Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman
Attorney General of the State of New York
Joshua E. McMahon,
Assistant Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff David Harrington, a former New York State inmate, commenced this civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§
12101-12213, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, against
defendants Dr. Vadlamudi, Sandra Martin Smith, and Marcy Correctional Facility. Dkt. Nos. 1,
33. Plaintiff alleges that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in

violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliated against him for filing grievances, in violation of
the First Amendment, and discriminated against him based on his disability in violation of the
ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Dkt. No. 33. Defendants moved under Rule 12(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for judgment on the pleadings solely with respect to plaintiff’s
disability discrimination claim. Dkt. No. 35.
On April 29, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece issued a ReportRecommendation and Order recommending that the Court grant defendants’ motion and dismiss
with prejudice plaintiff’s claims against them under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Dkt. No.
41. Magistrate Judge Treece advised the parties that, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), failure to file
written objections to the Report-Recommendation within fourteen days “will preclude appellate
review.” Dkt. No. 41, p. 8. Plaintiff requested and received an extension, until June 15, 2015, “to
appeal . . . the ADA and rehabilitation act” claims. Dkt. Nos. 43, 44. On June 12, 2015, plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 45. To date, plaintiff has not filed any objections to
the Report-Recommendation. 1
II.

REPORT-RECOMMENDATION
As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing

objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See
Glaspie v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr., No. 10 CV 00188(GBD)(JCF), 2010 WL 4967844, at *1, 2010
1

In his letter request for an extension of time to file objections, plaintiff states that there:
was an error in the [Report-Recommendation] on page seven and on the second paragraph w[h]ere
they claim that I am the highest paid employee [in] Marcy facility. I received my food handle
certificate at Au[]burn Correction[al] Facility and then I was trained for nine years and worked for
Mid State Correction[al] Facility. When I was transferred to Marcy Correction Facility, I was
given a physical. I was told I could no longer work for the kitchen because of my disability. I was
given a job as reporter, making 15 cent [sic] hour and food handle certificate was strike from me.

Dkt. No. 43. The Court need not determine whether plaintiff’s identification of this alleged error constitutes an
objection to dismissal of his ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims warranting de novo review because the Court
rejects the Report-Recommendation to the extent it recommends dismissal of plaintiff’s disability discrimination
claims.

2

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131629, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2010) (explaining that when no objections
to report and recommendation are made, “the Court may adopt [it] if there is ‘no clear error on
the face of the record.’”) (quoting Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253
(S.D.N.Y. 2005)).
A.

Dr. Vadlamudi and Sandra Martin Smith

Magistrate Judge Treece recommended dismissing plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation
Act claims against Dr. Vadlamudi and Sandra Martin Smith on the basis that “they may neither
be sued in their individual nor official capacities.” Dkt. No. 41, p. 7. The Court adopts this
recommendation having found no clear error in the recommended dismissal of the claims against
these defendants in their individual and official capacities, particularly where, as here, defendant
Marcy Correctional Facility “is the real party in interest.” Alster v. Goord, 745 F. Supp. 2d 317,
339 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (explaining that “[w]here, as here, a plaintiff may proceed on his ADA
claims against the State entity directly, courts in this Circuit dismiss the official capacity claims
because they are redundant of the claims against the government entity.”) (internal quotation
marks and brackets omitted); see also Garcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health Scis. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 280 F.3d
98, 107 (2d Cir. 2001) (the ADA does not provide for individual capacity suits against state or
city officials).
B.

Marcy Correctional Facility

Magistrate Judge Treece recommended dismissing plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation
Act claims against defendant Marcy Correctional Facility on the basis that he failed to plead a
prima facie case. Dkt. No. 41, p. 7. In reaching this conclusion, Magistrate Judge Treece
discussed plaintiff’s claim as follows:
Plaintiff may be a qualified individual with a disability as he suffers from Autism
Spectrum Disorder and debilitating epileptic seizures, but his Amended
3

Complaint is otherwise devoid of any facts that would indicate he was excluded
from Marcy’s programs or services due to discrimination based on his disability.
Instead, Plaintiff provides the Court with threadbare recitals of an ADA claim.
For instance, he claims “I was one of the highest paid individuals in the facility.
At the point I was told by the doctors that because of my disability I could no
longer work in the kitchen.” And then concludes, “I was discriminated against
because of my disability[.]”
Dkt. No. 41, pp. 7-8 (internal citations omitted).
The Report-Recommendation does not, however, address several factual allegations in
the amended complaint or consider whether it states a plausible denial of reasonable
accommodation claim. To state a prima facie claim under either the ADA or the Rehabilitation
Act, which courts treat identically, 2 plaintiff must allege: “(1) that he is a ‘qualified individual’
with a disability; 3 (2) that he was excluded from participation in a public entity’s services,
programs or activities or was otherwise discriminated against by a public entity; and (3) that such
exclusion or discrimination was due to his disability.” Hargrave v. Vermont, 340 F.3d 27, 34–35
(2d Cir. 2003). “A qualified individual can base a discrimination claim on any of ‘three available
theories: (1) intentional discrimination (disparate treatment); (2) disparate impact; and (3) failure
to make a reasonable accommodation.’” Fulton v. Goord, 591 F.3d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 2009)
(quoting Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Dep’t, 352 F.3d 565, 573 (2d Cir. 2003)).

2

In general, “we treat claims under the two statutes identically.” Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 272 (2d
Cir. 2003).

3

A “qualified individual” is
an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or
practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision
of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of
services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.

42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).

4

In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he is a “chronic epileptic,” with chronic
seizures, who broke vertebrae in his back after having a grand mal seizure in September 2012.
Dkt. 33, ¶¶ 4, 8, 68, 71. Plaintiff alleges that a doctor wrote a permit for a wheelchair so that he
could go “to and from the mess hall, infirmary, and to the school building” because he could “not
walk any amount of distance,” id., ¶¶ 33, 74; and that he struggled to walk without a wheelchair,
id., ¶ 34. Plaintiff further alleges that after he filed a grievance about his medical care, in
November 2012, the nurse “confiscat[ed]” his wheelchair “without just cause” and in retaliation
for having filed a grievance about his medical care. Id., ¶¶ 34, 73-77. Plaintiff claims that this
resulted in “excruciating pain and suffering falling and struggling to walk,” id., ¶ 34, and that he
could “no longer make it down to the school” to teach a program. Id., ¶¶ 76-77.
Construed liberally, these allegations sufficiently state a prima facie case that defendant
terminated plaintiff’s work because of his disability and that he was denied a reasonable
accommodation: (1) plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was excluded
from participating in Marcy Correctional Facility’s programs after (a) he lost his job in the
kitchen – his vocation of nine years, and (b) his wheelchair was confiscated rendering him
unable to “make it down to the school” to teach a program; and (3) his doctors told him that he
could not work in the kitchen anymore after giving him a physical and defendant Martin took his
wheelchair, a reasonable accommodation, “without just cause.” Id., ¶ 34. “Under Title II of the
ADA . . . prison officials may not discriminate against inmates on the basis of disability in
administering work programs.” Northrop v. Carucci, No. 3:04-CV-103 RNC, 2007 WL 685173,
at *4, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16491, at *13 (D. Conn. Mar. 5, 2007) (denying summary
judgment where the plaintiff alleged “that he was discharged from his kitchen job and not
provided a different job because of his disability”); see also Coker v. Dallas Cnty. Jail, No. 3:05-

5

CV-005-M (BH), 2009 WL 1953038, at *18, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62978, at *53 (N.D. Tex.
Feb. 25, 2009) (finding issue of fact as to whether prison had reasonably accommodated
wheelchair-bound inmate when it confiscated his wheelchair for three months after having found
contraband in it). Accordingly, having reviewed the face of the record and having found a
number of facts alleged in the complaint that were not addressed in the Report-Recommendation,
the Court declines to adopt the Report-Recommendation to the extent it recommends dismissal
of plaintiff’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against defendant Marcy Correctional Facility.
III.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
In the second amended complaint, plaintiff alleges additional facts in support of his ADA

and Rehabilitation Act claims. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 45, ¶¶ 83-95. While mindful that it “should
freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), for the reasons
stated in section II.A., supra, the Court rejects the second amended complaint to the extent it
continues to assert ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against Dr. Vadlamudi and Sandra Martin
Smith. The Court otherwise accepts the second amended complaint, as filed.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 41) is ACCEPTED to the

extent it recommends granting defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 35) all ADA and
Rehabilitation Act claims against defendants Dr. Vadlamudi and Sandra Martin Smith; and it is
further
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 35) all ADA and Rehabilitation
Act claims against defendants Dr. Vadlamudi and Sandra Martin Smith is GRANTED; and it is
further

6

ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 41) is otherwise REJECTED;
and it is further
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 35) plaintiff’s ADA and
Rehabilitation Act claims against defendant Marcy Correctional Facility is DENIED; and it is
further
ORDERED that the those portions of the second amended complaint that continue to
assert ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against Dr. Vadlamudi and Sandra Martin Smith are
stricken; and it is further
ORDERED that the second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 45) is otherwise accepted as
filed; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants’ letter request (Dkt. No. 46) is DENIED to the extent they
request that the Court strike the second amended complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants’ letter request (Dkt. No. 46) is GRANTED to the extent
they seek additional time to file a response to the second amended complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants shall respond to the second amended complaint on or before
August 4, 2015;
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and
Order to plaintiff along with copies of the unpublished decisions cited in this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 21, 2015

7