Boykin v. Commissioner of NYS DOCS , 354 F. App'x 475 ( 2009 )

07-5253-pr
Boykin v. Commissioner of NYS DOCS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO
SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED
BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER,
IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST
EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:
“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF
THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS
CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS
AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT
PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT
HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE
AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE
REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE
ORDER WAS ENTERED.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 25 th day of November, two thousand nine.
5
6 PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 Circuit Judges,
9 LAWRENCE E. KAHN, *
10 District Court.
11 ___________________________________________
12 Connie Boykin,
13
14 Plaintiff-Appellant,
15
16 v. 07-5253-pr
17
18 Commissioner of NYS DOCS, Harold McKinney,
19 Warden, Mt. McGregor Correctional Facility,
20 Commissioner of Health and Hospital for
21 NYS DOCS, Medical Supervisor, Crook, Dr.,
22 Helen Atwell, Medical Nurse, Mt. McGregor
23 Correctional Facility,
24
25 Defendants-Appellees.
*
Lawrence E. Kahn, Senior Judge of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York,
sitting by designation.
1 ___________________________________________
2
3 FOR APPELLANT: C ONNIE B OYKIN, pro se, Warwick, New
4 York.
5
6 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court
7 for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.).
8
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
10 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
11
12 Appellant Connie Boykin, pro se, appeals from the
13 judgment of the United States District Court for the
14 Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.), sua sponte
15 dismissing his complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
16 1915(e)(2)(B). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
17 underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and
18 the issues on appeal.
19 We review de novo the district court’s sua sponte
20 dismissal under § 1915(e). Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146,
21 149-50 (2d Cir. 2001).
22 To substantiate an Eighth Amendment claim for medical
23 indifference, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant was
24 deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Farmer
25 v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834-35 (1994). Deliberate
26 indifference has two necessary components, one objective and
27 the other subjective. Hathaway v. Coughlin, 99 F.3d 550,
28 553 (2d Cir. 1994). Objectively, the deprivation must be
29 “sufficiently serious,” creating a risk of “death,
2
1 degeneration, or extreme pain.” Id. (internal quotation
2 marks omitted). Subjectively, the official must have the
3 requisite state of mind, the “equivalent of criminal
4 recklessness.” Id. An accident alone is not enough, even
5 if that accident results in suffering. Estelle v. Gamble,
6 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976).
7 Here, the district court properly found that
8 Appellant’s claim that Appellee Atwell had injected him with
9 the wrong medication did not state a claim of deliberate
10 indifference to his medical needs. The complaint clearly
11 alleged that the injection was accidental, and Appellant on
12 appeal describes Atwell as acting negligently.
13 For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the
14 district court is AFFIRMED.
15
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
18
19 By:__________________________
3