Cuoco v. Moritsugu
- Decided
- July 28, 2000
- Docket
- Docket No. 98-2954
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,979 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that if the problems with the causes of action are substantive, better pleading would not cure it — Haynie v. NYS Child Support Enforcement Agency (2025)
- holding that where the “problem with [a complaint] is substantive [and] better pleading will not cure it,” leave to amend should be denied as futile — Arazi v. Cohen Brothers Realty Corporation (2022)
- holding that where the infirmities of a plaintiff's complaint are "substantive," "better pleading will not cure it" such that "[r]epleading would thus be futile" — Tavenner v. International Business Machines Corp. (2022)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
SACK, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff John Andrew Cuoco brought a pro se action claiming that she was denied estrogen treatments while incarcerated as a pre-trial detainee in the all-male Federal Correctional Institution at Otisville, New York (“FCI Otisville”) in violation of, inter alia, her Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The defendants and their employment at the time suit was instituted are:
J. Michael Quinlan Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons Kenneth Moritsugu, D. Medical Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons Gregory L. Hershberger Warden, FCI Otisville Donald Moore Health Services Administrator, FCI Otisville Robert D. Barraco, M.D. Chief Medical Officer and Chief of Health Programs, FCI Otisville Muhamad Malik, M.D. Psychiatrist, FCI Otisville Martin Salamack, Ph.D. Chief Psychologist, FCI Ot-isville The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lawrence M. McKenna, Judge) granted a motion to dismiss the complaint as to defendants Hershberger, Moore, Malik, and Salamack. The court declined to grant a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment brought by the remaining three defendants, Barra-co, Moritsugu, and Quinlan (collectively the “Defendants-Appellants”). We conclude that all of the defendants enjoyed either qualified or absolute immunity from suit and were thus entitled to summary judgment. We therefore reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand to the district court for it to enter judgment for all the defendants.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2000)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.