Suarez v. Sullivan

── Suarez v. Sullivan ── Case No.: 24-872 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 17, 2026 Category: General 24-872 Suarez v. Sullivan, et al. United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2024 Argued: March 31, 2025 Decided: March 17, 2026 No. 24-872 ELVIN SUAREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT MORTON, Superintendent, Downstate Correctional Facility, in his individual capacity; ABDUL QAYYUM, Psychiatrist, Downstate Correctional Facility, in his individual capacity; PETER M. HORAN, Supervising Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator, Downstate Correctional Facility, in his individual capacity; MAURA L. DINARDO, Clinician, New York State Office of Mental Health, in her individual capacity; SAMANTHA L. KULICK, Psychology Assistant 3/Supervisor, New York State Office of Mental Health, in her individual capacity; BRANDON N. REYNOLDS, Psychiatrist, New York State Office of Mental Health, in his individual capacity; CHESNEY J. BAKER, Licensed Master Social Worker 2/Supervisor, New York State Office of Mental Health, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees,  ANN MARIE T. SULLIVAN, Commissioner, New York State Office of Mental Health, in her individual capacity; NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION; NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH; ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, in his individual capacity; RYAN LAHEY, Office of Mental Health Unit Chief, Downstate Correctional Facility, in his individual capacity, Defendants. * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York No. 7:20CV07133, Vincent L. Briccetti, Judge. Before: PARK, PÉREZ, and MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff-appellant Elvin Suarez brought this action against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), the New York State Office of Mental Health (“OMH”), and several DOCCS and OMH employees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Suarez asserts two Eighth Amendment claims: (1) deliberate indifference to his conditions of confinement, and (2) deliberate indifference to his medical needs. *The Clerk’s Office is respectfully directed to amend the caption as reflected above. 2  The District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety, concluding that no triable issues of fact existed on the record before it. We disagree and conclude that, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Suarez, there are genuine disputes of material fact on both Eighth Amendment claims as to each defendant’s knowledge of a serious risk to Suarez’s health and well-being, and each defendant’s disregard of that risk. We therefore VACATE the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED. JUDGE PARK dissents in a separate opinion.