Inmate wins cigarette smoke health-risk appeal

This case was filed by an inmate in the New York corrections system. He claims that jail officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He argues that cigarette smoke in the prison was harmful to his health. The district court dismissed the case on summary judgment. The Court of Appeals gives him a second chance.

The case is Braxton v. Bruen, a summary order issued on November 13. The Court of Appeals (Livingston, Parker and Nardini) holds it was premature for the district court to grant summary judgment on this claim without plaintiff an opportunity for additional discovery that might prove his claims. Plaintiff's theory of the case was that he complained about this health risk to the Central Office Review Committee (CORC) but that this committee ignored the letters. On the summary judgment motion, the individual defendants named in the lawsuit said they did not serve on the CORC but had designated others for that task. But plaintiff says he does not know who these designees are. The Court of Appeals says plaintiff deserves the right to find out their identities.

Pro se litigants are a serious disadvantage when it comes to discovery. That was the case here. The Court of Appeals gives plaintiff the opportunity to identify these officers who may have received his letters. The Court of Appeals said in Davis v. Kelly, 160 F.3d 917 (2d Cir. 1998), that special rules guide cases brought by pro se inmates who are trying to identify the right defendants in their civil rights cases. Davis is the controlling precedent here, and plaintiff gets that opportunity on remand. Discovery will be reopened for that purpose. The Court of Appeals assigns pro bono counsel for that purpose.