Skip to main content

Ottey-Bey v. Scheublin

E.D.N.Y.March 26, 2025No. 1:22-cv-03019
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
440 Civil Rights: Other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

Summary judgment granted for defendants C.O. Kinney and Nurse Berlinghoff on plaintiff's § 1983 Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. Evidence established that Nurse Berlinghoff was not present at the facility when the incident occurred and C.O. Kinney did not escort plaintiff to medical, defeating plaintiff's claims.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** A person incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility sued two employees - Corrections Officer Kinney and Nurse Berlinghoff - claiming they failed to provide proper medical care when he needed it. He argued this violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment. **What the Court Decided** The court ruled in favor of the corrections officer and nurse, dismissing the case entirely. The judge found that the evidence clearly showed Nurse Berlinghoff wasn't even at the facility when the incident happened, and Officer Kinney wasn't responsible for taking the plaintiff to medical care. Since neither employee was actually involved in denying medical treatment, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows that employees can successfully defend against civil rights lawsuits when they can prove they weren't actually involved in the alleged wrongdoing. For correctional facility workers and other government employees, maintaining clear documentation about work schedules, duties, and responsibilities can be crucial protection if they face legal claims. The ruling demonstrates that courts require specific evidence linking an individual employee to the alleged violation of rights.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Alexander
S.D. Tex.Aug 2025
Dismissed
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.