Opinion
# 2012-049-010 Claim No. 120885 Motion # 2012-049-010 Claim No. M-81187 # 2012-049-010 Claim No. M-81868
09-28-2012
ADRIAN MCCAIN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis Case information
UID: 2012-049-010 Claimant(s): ADRIAN MCCAIN Claimant short MCCAIN name: Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK The caption on the claim reads McCain v Medical Doctor W. Footnote Confield Nurse practitioner, Mrs. Oates. The caption on the (defendant Order to Show Cause names only the State of New York. Since name) : only the State is a proper defendant, the caption on the claim is amended accordingly. Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number 120885 (s): Motion number M-81187, M-81868 (s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: David A. Weinstein Claimant's Adrian McCain, Pro Se attorney: Defendant's Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General attorney: By: Roberto Barbosa, Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: September 28, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant Adrian McCain, an inmate proceeding pro se, brought this action by a claim filed February 3, 2012. The claim alleges that the actions of various medical personnel at Southport Correctional Facility ("Southport") constituted deliberate indifference and medical malpractice. McCain asserts that, among other things, such personnel refused to provide him with a proventil inhaler pump and a back brace. He contends that these items are necessary to address certain medical conditions, and that he had been provided with while incarcerated in a different facility. This opinion addresses various outstanding matters in regard to his claim.
I. Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order
Alongside his claim, McCain submitted an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, which would bar defendant from denying claimant his back brace and from denying him the use, possession and refilling of his inhaler.
The primary jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is "limited to actions seeking money damages," and the Court thus has "no jurisdiction to grant strictly equitable relief" such as the injunction sought here (see Ozanam Hall of Queens Nursing Home v State of New York, 241 AD2d 670, 671 [3d Dept 1997]). While this Court "perhaps, to some extent, may grant some sort of incidental equitable relief" (Psaty v Duryea, 306 NY 413, 417 [1954]), this is not such an instance. The relief McCain now seeks is not incidental to his claim for damages; rather, it would require the Court to address in an equitable proceeding the central factual and legal questions underlying his case.
Such a determination lies outside this Court's authority. As a result, claimant's application is denied.
II. Motion to Compel Discovery
On July 11, 2012, claimant filed motion no. M-81868 for an order directing "the State[']s Attorney to[] provide to[] claimant under Discovery the (mitigating, [exculpatory], impeachment evidence) and (Injury and cell incident photos) and (Log Book pages, notes, reports of Jan 25, 2012 cell incident) for inspection and photo cop[y]ing . . . ." In his motion, claimant argues that defendant has a duty to provide him with "favorable evidence," citing Brady v Maryland, (373 US 83 [1963]) and its progeny regarding the duty of the prosecution in criminal cases to disclose exculpatory materials. He also states that he made two efforts to get these materials: first, under the Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL"), and second, in an undisclosed manner from the Assistant Attorney General (Aff. in Supp. ¶ 5). Claimant appends to his motion a form from the Southport FOIL office stating that log books must be redacted, and McCain "can't review redacted documents."
The parentheses are in the original.
Claimant has not shown any basis for the Court to compel disclosure here. His contention that the State is obligated to provide him documents helpful to his claim, even without an appropriate discovery request, is not correct. The Brady doctrine upon which he relies is relevant only to criminal cases; it does not apply to civil suits (see Martinez v State of New York, 128 Misc 2d 789, 791 [Ct Cl 1985] [considerations underlying Brady "do not attach" in a civil action). As to the FOIL request, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review an agency's FOIL determination. Rather, such an administrative ruling is properly challenged in an Article 78 proceeding (see Anthony v State of New York, UID No. 2011-039-221 [Ct Cl, Ferreira, J., Mar. 16, 2011]; Bobreski v State of New York, UID No. 2009-015-202 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., Sept. 16, 2009]).
In regard to claimant's reference to a request made to the Assistant Attorney General, neither claimant's submission nor the Court file contain any evidence that a request for documents was served on defendant pursuant to CPLR 3120, the rule governing such requests. The only discovery requests contained in the Court record are three requests for admissions under CPLR 3123 served by claimant on defendant, and each addressed to a different correction officer (see Aff. in Opp. Exs. B to D). On April 16, defendant served replies to these requests, arguing that the individual officers were third parties, and therefore not appropriate subjects for requests to admit. Further, the State objected to these requests as inappropriate under section 3213, as they did not address "clear-cut matters of fact," as appropriate for a request to admit (see Aff. in Opp. ¶¶ 5-7). No reference is made to these objections in claimant's current motion.
A party may move to compel discovery only when a "person fails to respond to or comply with any request, notice, interrogatory, demand, question or order under this article" (CPLR 3124). Here, construing claimant's pro se filings liberally as I must, there is no indication that claimant has served anything which can be viewed as a request for production of the documents he now seeks. In the absence of such a notice, and an opportunity for the State to respond thereto, I cannot grant claimant's motion (see Claybourne v City of New York, 128 AD2d 667 [2d Dept 1987] [court properly denied motion that court order taking of depositions, where no demand had been made for them prior to filing of motion to compel]).
III. In Forma Pauperis Status and Appointment of Counsel
On February 3, 2012, claimant filed a document entitled "notice of motion to proceed as poor person pursuant to CPLR 1101." The form motion signed by claimant also states that it sought "assignment of counsel." By order of Presiding Judge Richard Sise, dated February 28, 2012, claimant was granted a fee waiver reduction. Claimant's motion was ultimately calendared as motion no. M-81187 for in forma pauperis status and appointment of counsel, and defendant submitted papers in opposition to such motion.
By an affidavit dated June 7, 2012, claimant specifically disclaims any intention to seek court-appointed counsel via his February 3 filing, or to seek to proceed in forma pauperis beyond such relief as was granted by Presiding Judge Sise's order.
In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that motion no. M-81187 is deemed withdrawn; and it is further ORDERED that motion no. M-81868 is denied in all respects, as is claimant's application for injunctive relief.
SO ORDERED.
September 28, 2012
Albany, New York
David A. Weinstein
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered on Motion No. M-81868:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, affidavit titled "Discovery Motion Under C.P.L.R. #3120 Court of Claims Act #17-Sub.#(2) - Civil Procedure Act # 288," and annexed Exhibit; "Order to Show Cause for a [] Preliminary Injunction, and a Temporary Restraining Order Civil Action."
2. Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition to Claimant's Discovery Motion, and annexed Exhibits.
3. "Claimant[']s Reply Response to Defendant Sworn Affidavit Statement Opposition to Motion."
Papers Considered on Motion No. M-81187:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion to Proceed as Poor Person Pursuant to CPLR 1101.
2. Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition to Claimant's Motion to Proceed as Poor Person and for Assignment of Counsel.
3. Claimant's correspondence, dated June 6, 2012.