Zeigler v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

Background

Terrell Zeigler, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Anthony J. Annucci, Leroy Fields, Stephen Urbanski, and Akinola Akinyombo. Zeigler alleged that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to his risk of contracting COVID-19 and by denying him adequate medical care and humane conditions after he contracted the virus.

Zeigler was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility from the beginning of 2020 through at least the filing of his complaint in January 2023. He alleged that his housing area had crowded dormitories, shared bathrooms and recreation areas, and a cramped mess hall. He further alleged that, during the early months of the pandemic, Fishkill did not adequately enforce social distancing, did not sufficiently limit communal activities, inconsistently screened staff, continued some programs, and used a quarantine system that kept potentially exposed inmates together in the same dormitory.

Zeigler became ill in April 2020. After initially being told that he did not have COVID-19, he tested positive and was hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia and low blood oxygen. He alleged that he remained hospitalized for ten days, developed a MRSA infection, and returned to Fishkill with continuing medical and hygiene problems, including difficulty obtaining clean clothing and dealing with bouts of defecation.

Motion to Dismiss

Annucci, Fields, and Urbanski moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Akinyombo had not been served and did not join the motion.

For an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim, the court explained that a prisoner must allege both a sufficiently serious deprivation and that the official actually knew about and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. A claim also requires facts showing the defendant’s personal involvement; a supervisor cannot be held liable merely because someone the supervisor oversaw allegedly violated the Constitution.

Claims Against Fields

The court held that Zeigler plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against Fields, who was Fishkill’s superintendent during the relevant period. The court determined that the crowded conditions, communal spaces, alleged lack of effective distancing and screening, continued programs, quarantine practices, and COVID-19 deaths at Fishkill plausibly presented a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court also found that Zeigler plausibly alleged Fields’s awareness of and disregard for that risk. The complaint alleged that Fields knew COVID-19 had reached the facility, knew the conditions in Zeigler’s housing area, and failed to take reasonable steps to reduce inmate interaction or consistently implement precautions. The court emphasized that this was only a pleading-stage determination. Discovery could show that Fields’s conduct was merely negligent or that the facility’s overall response was reasonable.

The court also declined to grant qualified immunity to the moving defendants at this stage. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established right or when it was objectively reasonable, but the defendants’ argument was largely conclusory. Given the detailed allegations and fact-dependent questions about whether COVID-19 precautions were actually implemented, the court held that qualified immunity could not be resolved as a matter of law on the motion.

Claims Against Annucci

The court dismissed Zeigler’s claim against Annucci. The complaint alleged that Annucci knew of the general COVID-19 threat in New York prisons and issued department-wide precautions, but it did not adequately allege that he knew about the specific conditions at Fishkill or about Fields’s particular conduct.

The court also found that Annucci took several steps in response to the general threat, including restricting visitation, providing or permitting protective equipment, directing quarantine measures, and addressing transmission risks. The alleged shortcomings in those measures, such as not requiring mask use at the outset, amounted at most to negligence based on the allegations presented. The court therefore concluded that Zeigler had not plausibly alleged deliberate indifference or the required personal involvement by Annucci.

Claims Against Akinyombo

Because Akinyombo had not been served, the court did not rule on the claims against him. The court directed Zeigler, within 30 days, to request an extension of time to serve Akinyombo. The court warned that failure to meet that deadline could result in dismissal of those claims with prejudice.

Claims Against Urbanski

The court dismissed Zeigler’s claim against Urbanski. Zeigler alleged that Urbanski approved his removal from quarantine and return to the general population, and argued that this showed Urbanski knew or should have known about the conditions Zeigler experienced. The court held that these allegations concerned events near the end of Zeigler’s treatment and did not show that Urbanski knew about or contributed to the allegedly unconstitutional conditions when they occurred.

The court noted that exposure to human waste in prison can support an Eighth Amendment claim, but concluded that Zeigler had not adequately alleged Urbanski’s personal involvement. The dismissal was without prejudice to filing an amended complaint alleging claims against medical staff members involved in his treatment.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. It dismissed the Eighth Amendment claims against Annucci and Urbanski without prejudice, allowed the Eighth Amendment claim against Fields to proceed, and did not decide the claims against unserved Defendant Akinyombo. Because this was the first adjudication of the claims on the merits, the court gave Zeigler 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court stated that failure to meet the deadline could result in the dismissed claims being dismissed with prejudice.