×
You have 1 more free article available this month. Subscribe today.
Second Circuit Dismisses New York Prisoner's § 1983 Action for Deliberate Indifference to Diabetic Diet
Second Circuit Dismisses New York Prisoner's § 1983 Action for Deliberate Indifference to Diabetic Diet
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a § 1983 claim by prisoner Steve Collazo, who had alleged "deliberate indifference to medical needs" and due process violations against Great Meadows Correctional Facility (Meadows), and prison staff at that facility. The court also found that the "in-forma-pauperis" status of the prisoner should be revoked, based upon the Prison Litigation Reform Act, (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g).
Collazo had alleged that Meadows had denied him his special dietary meals, based upon his newly-diagnosed diabetes, but the facts showed that he had missed those meals, and his special dietary status had been revoked as a result. After a prison disciplinary hearing was decided in Collazo's favor, his special meals were restarted. The court noted that deliberate indifference has two necessary components: "the official must have acted... (with) criminal recklessness," and "Collazo (must have) a protected... interest in receiving such a diet," and established neither.
Additionally, the court found that the Meadows food service manager was entitled to qualified immunity, and also declined to reinstate Collazo's in-forma-pauperis status, noting that he had in fact received three "strikes" and -did not fall under any exceptions to the language of the three-strike rule of 1915(g). See: Collazo v. Pagano 656 F.3d 131 (2011).
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a § 1983 claim by prisoner Steve Collazo, who had alleged "deliberate indifference to medical needs" and due process violations against Great Meadows Correctional Facility (Meadows), and prison staff at that facility. The court also found that the "in-forma-pauperis" status of the prisoner should be revoked, based upon the Prison Litigation Reform Act, (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g).
Collazo had alleged that Meadows had denied him his special dietary meals, based upon his newly-diagnosed diabetes, but the facts showed that he had missed those meals, and his special dietary status had been revoked as a result. After a prison disciplinary hearing was decided in Collazo's favor, his special meals were restarted. The court noted that deliberate indifference has two necessary components: "the official must have acted... (with) criminal recklessness," and "Collazo (must have) a protected... interest in receiving such a diet," and established neither.
Additionally, the court found that the Meadows food service manager was entitled to qualified immunity, and also declined to reinstate Collazo's in-forma-pauperis status, noting that he had in fact received three "strikes" and -did not fall under any exceptions to the language of the three-strike rule of 1915(g). See: Collazo v. Pagano 656 F.3d 131 (2011).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Collazo v. Pagano
| Year | 2011 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 656 F.3d 131 (2011) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Injunction Status | N/A |