by Chuck Sharman

On January 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of a former New York prisoner whose prostate cancer should have been diagnosed by medical personnel while in custody of the state Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), reversing dismissal of his civil rights claim against them.

Before his parole from a 20-­year prison term in 2019, Antonio Mallet complained to doctors at Woodbine Correctional Facility about difficulty urinating, plus pain when he was able to urinate. Urinary obstruction and painful urination “are classic symptoms of prostate cancer,” the Second Circuit later noted. Mallet was referred for a cystoscopy to resolve his urinary blockage complaint in September 2017; the test’s results “would lead any reasonable medical professional to order additional testing to rule out prostate cancer,” his complaint alleged.

But doctors did not do that, instead prescribing Flomax to ease his urination. Mallet continued to complain the next month about his problems, which now included blood in his urine stream. But his next appointment was with a neurologist, who confessed to being as mystified as Mallet about that referral.

In 2018, repeated complaints got Mallet nothing but name-­calling—“scum”—from guards, along with lies by medical personnel on reports that his cystoscopy had “yielded negative results.” After a pre-­parole transfer in October 2018 to Queensboro Correctional Facility, another medical provider again refused to do more but offered that the prisoner would “hopefully … get better treatment” after his release.

At least that much proved true. Following his parole, Mallet went for treatment in July 2019 and a month later was on medication to shrink his swollen prostate. When that proved unsuccessful, he was referred for a biopsy in April 2021, and two months later underwent surgery to remove “a large tumorous carcinoma.” By the time he filed an amended complaint in June 2022, he was urinating through a catheter into a bag and could no longer produce semen. His life expectancy was also “non-­existent,” he said, because “the prostate cancer has metastasized.”

Mallet filed his complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which dismissed his claim, agreeing with Defendant DOCCS officials that Mallet filed it outside the three-­year statute of limitations following his January 2019 release, when he knew or should have known that he was the victim of deliberate indifference. Mallet timely appealed that October 2022 decision; over two years later, the Second Circuit reversed it.

Second Circuit’s Rationale

The Court began by noting the two elements of a deliberate indifference claim necessary to plausibly plead a violation of a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment guarantee of freedom from cruel and unusual punishment—which was the claim that Mallet made in his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First, he must “prove that he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition” and, secondly, that Defendants ignored it with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” as laid out in Hathaway v. Coughlin, 37 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 1994).

Applying that to Mallet’s case, he had to know “(1) that he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition while he was incarcerated,” the Court said, “and (2) that Defendants-­Appellees failed to provide adequate treatment because they consciously disregarded a substantial risk to his health and safety.” The question was: When did he know both?

Just because this raised factual disputes did not mean that answering them would deprive a jury of the chance to later hear them; but at the pleading stage, the Court continued, all of Mallet’s factual allegations must be taken as true, citing Shomo v. City of N.Y., 579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009) [opinion replaced by Shomo v. City of N.Y., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 23076 (2d Cir. 2009)]. The prisoner said that the prison doctors gave no indication that he suffered from cancer—indeed, their failure to do so formed the basis of his claim. Therefore, he had no reason to suspect that he suffered more than “uncomfortable and annoying” symptoms, insufficient to support a claim for deliberate indifference under Brock v. Wright, 315 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2003).

Dissenting Judge Steven J. Menashi found this implausible. But the majority of the Second Circuit agreed that Mallet’s claim had plausibly not accrued by the time he was released from prison. However, his argument that accrual should date to his May 2021 diagnosis “is not plausible,” the Court continued. As early as August 2020, his test results showed elevated levels of prostate-­specific antigens (PSAs). While a jury may find that he had knowledge or constructive knowledge sooner, that was the earliest date supported by the pleadings, making the claim timely filed.

Relying on Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007), Defendants argued that a “tort cause of action accrues … when the wrongful act or omission results in damages,” without need to wait until “the full extent of the injury is … known or predictable.” But the Court rejected that framing, noting that it wasn’t until Mallet realized “the full extent of his injury” that he had a viable Eighth Amendment claim. That’s why the Seventh and Tenth Circuits have ruled that accrual occurs when the Plaintiff “knew or should have known” that his condition was “sufficiently serious,” in Devbrow v. Kalu, 705 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2013) and Vasquez v. Davis, 882 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2018).

Accordingly, dismissal was reversed of Mallet’s deliberate indifference claims against the prison doctors—except the bemused neurologist. Dismissal was affirmed on sovereign immunity grounds of claims against DOCCS and former Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci. Dismissal was vacated of other constitutional claims against the doctors and other DOCCS personnel, as well as state-­law negligence and medical malpractice claims. Before the Court, Mallet was represented by attorney Caner Demirayak of his eponymous Brooklyn law office. See: Mallet v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, 126 F.4th 125 (2d Cir. 2025).  

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case