Posts
You know, inmates have rights, too. This one filed a lawsuit over the jail's failure to accommodate his disability, among other violations. Much of the case is gone, but the Second Circuit revives his claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is Long v. Annucci, a summary order issued on November 3. Long, an inmate at Cape Vincent Correctional Facility, has severe osteoarthritis, degenerative changes to his lower back, and plantar fasciitis. His medical conditions caused chronic pain and difficulty walking. A prison doctor recommended orthopedic treatment and custom footwear, but Dr. David Dinello, a regional medical director, repeatedly deferred those recommendations, suggesting physical therapy and other less advanced treatments instead.
Long was required to complete Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment (ASAT) and Aggression Replacement Treatment (ART) programs to qualify for early release. But because of his medical problems, he was initially exempted from programming. In June 2015, he was transferred to the ASAT dormitory, where he allegedly had to walk long distances to obtain meals and medication.
In February 2016, Long requested reasonable accommodations, including specialized boots, orthotics, a shoe lift, and shorter walking distances to prison facilities and services. The following day, DOCCS transferred him to the infirmary, where he received certain mobility accommodations, including grab bars and accessible bathroom facilities. But prison officials denied his requests for specialized footwear and orthotics, which Long said were needed to participate in prison programming.
Long sued under the Eighth Amendment, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. On the Eighth Amendment claims, the Court of Appeals (Lee, Wesley and Jacobs) rejects Long's deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Dinello. A prisoner asserting inadequate medical care must establish both an objectively serious medical need and subjective deliberate indifference, requiring at least culpable recklessness. The Court said Long failed to establish the subjective component. Long did not dispute that Dinello believed several of his treatment decisions were medically justified. And the doctor who recommended orthopedic treatment acknowledged that physical therapy was an acceptable treatment and that Long received standard and accepted care throughout his incarceration.
Nor does Long have any basis for the conditions-of-confinement claims against three prison officials. Long cannot prove they were personally involved in the violation under Tangreti v. Bachmann, a Second Circuit ruling from a few years ago that, interpreting the famous Iqbal case, says you have to identify the wrongdoers by name in the lawsuit.. Two counselors established that they had no authority over Long's placement in the ASAT dormitory or his removal from it. The superintendent's involvement was limited to investigating grievances and affirming grievance committee decisions.
On his claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, the district court misapplied the reasonable-accommodation framework. An accommodation must provide effective access to prison programs and activities. Although an accommodation need not be perfect or the inmate's preferred choice, effectiveness is essential. While the trial court said DOCCS had reasonably accommodated Long by transferring him to the infirmary. that only addressed some of plaintiff's needs. Long said that without specialized footwear, he could not meaningfully participate in early-release programming.
The Court found that Long satisfied his initial burden of identifying a facially reasonable accommodation. He had previously used specialized footwear and experienced substantial pain when walking without it. Significantly, DOCCS eventually approved his request for orthotic shoes in May 2016.
The Court also rejected the district court's characterization of the footwear request as merely a demand for specific medical treatment. Long was not claiming that DOCCS denied him medical care. Rather, he argued that the denial prevented him from accessing prison services and programs because of his disability. That is an actionable ADA and Rehabilitation Act theory.
Once Long established a facially reasonable accommodation, the burden shifted to DOCCS to demonstrate undue hardship. The district court had not properly conducted that inquiry. The case returns to the district court to apply the correct legal standard on the statutory disability discrimination claims.
What do we learn here? While prison officials are not required to provide an inmate's preferred accommodation, they must demonstrate that the accommodation actually works or establish that the requested alternative would impose an undue hardship. The Court does pay homage to the principle that prison security, administrative concerns, and the orderly delivery of medical services are legitimate considerations in evaluating undue hardship. But those considerations must be addressed through the proper legal framework rather than simply assuming that whatever accommodations prison officials provided were reasonable.
