Barrow v. Department of Corrections

Background

Hakiem Barrow brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was detained before trial at the Vernon C. Bain Center in New York City. He alleged that the facility failed to maintain six feet of social distancing, comply with capacity limits, and provide adequate sanitation or disinfectant supplies during the COVID-19 pandemic. He alleged that three people in his dorm tested positive between January 12 and January 16, 2021. Barrow sought $250,000 in compensatory damages, $250,000 in punitive damages, and release on his own recognizance until appropriate social-distancing measures were implemented.

The operative complaint named Cynthia Brann, Patsy Yang, and Margaret Egan. The court construed the official-capacity claims against Brann and Egan as claims against the City of New York and directed the Clerk to add the City as a defendant. The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. They did not move to dismiss Barrow’s conditions-of-confinement claim against the City. Barrow did not respond to the motion despite receiving an extended deadline.

Equal-Protection Claim

The court dismissed Barrow’s equal-protection claim. Although he alleged that safety protections were provided to people outside custody, he did not plausibly allege that he belonged to a protected class or that he was treated differently from an otherwise similarly situated person without a rational basis. The court also found that being incarcerated, by itself, does not make a person a member of a protected class, and Barrow did not identify another inmate who was similarly situated but treated differently.

Conditions-of-Confinement Claims

For a pretrial detainee’s conditions-of-confinement claim under § 1983, the court explained that the plaintiff must allege both objectively serious conditions and that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference—meaning they intentionally or recklessly failed to take reasonable care in response to a serious risk. The court said Barrow’s allegations might be enough to show a substantial risk of serious harm, but he did not adequately allege that Brann, Yang, or Egan personally acted with deliberate indifference. Their supervisory positions, knowledge of conditions, or failure to act on a complaint were not enough by themselves.

The court dismissed with prejudice the conditions-of-confinement claims against Brann and Egan in their official capacities because those claims duplicated the claims against the City. It dismissed without prejudice the conditions claims against Brann, Yang, and Egan in their personal capacities and against Yang in her official capacity. The court explained that Barrow had not alleged personal involvement by the individual defendants and had not alleged that a policy or custom of New York City Health + Hospitals supported the claim against Yang in her official capacity. The court granted Barrow leave to amend these claims, except for the official-capacity claims against Brann and Egan that were dismissed with prejudice.

Punitive Damages and Injunctive Relief

The court discussed the defendants’ argument that punitive damages were unavailable against the City and officials sued in their official capacities. The conclusion did not separately identify a final disposition of the punitive-damages request.

The court reserved decision on Barrow’s request for release. It appeared that he was no longer in Department of Correction custody, and the Vernon C. Bain Center was closed. The court therefore directed the parties to state by October 3, 2024, whether the request for injunctive relief was moot. The court also stated that if Barrow did not respond to the order by that date, the case would be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss in part. The conditions-of-confinement claims against Brann and Egan in their official capacities were dismissed with prejudice. The equal-protection claim and the specified conditions-of-confinement claims against the individual defendants in their personal capacities and Yang in her official capacity were dismissed without prejudice. Barrow could file a third amended complaint concerning those claims by October 3, 2024; otherwise, the order stated, those claims would be dismissed with prejudice. The ruling did not resolve the request for injunctive relief.