Moments v. Warden

Background

Betta Moments, who was incarcerated at Washington Correctional Facility and represented herself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She alleged that events at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island violated her rights. The named defendants were the RMSC warden, grievance committee “staff,” an “EHO Cleaning Department Supervisor,” and an “inmate cashier.” The court had previously allowed her to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Moments alleged that, from April 25, 2024, through September 9, 2024, she could not properly pursue grievances. She described mold, bacteria, and fungi in the showers, said that limited officer staffing prevented access to cleaning supplies, and alleged that a power-washing crew had been terminated because of city budgeting. She said she developed an open wound between the toes of her right foot and an inflamed boil containing pus. She also alleged that an unexplained amount of money had been taken from her inmate account. She sought medical treatment, including antibiotics and antifungal cream, $1,400,000 in damages, and return of the missing funds.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under the standards governing complaints filed without prepayment of fees. It explained that such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or presents claims over which the court lacks jurisdiction. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint is read liberally but still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Conditions of confinement. The court treated the allegations about the showers as a claim under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Such a claim requires facts showing both seriously unsafe conditions and that a correctional official knew about and deliberately ignored a serious risk. The court found that Moments did not allege facts showing that the shower conditions caused her injuries or that a particular correctional officer knew of and deliberately disregarded a serious health risk. The court therefore found that she failed to state this claim, but granted her leave to amend it with additional facts.

Medical care. The court also treated the allegations about the foot wound and boil as an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim. That claim requires facts showing a serious medical condition and deliberate indifference by correctional staff. The court found that Moments did not allege facts showing that her condition was sufficiently serious or that staff knew about it, understood its seriousness, and denied treatment despite that knowledge. The court granted her leave to provide additional facts if she wished to pursue the claim.

Missing money. The court separately addressed the allegation that money was missing from Moments’s prison account. As to the “inmate cashier,” the court held that an incarcerated private individual is not a state actor and therefore cannot be sued under § 1983. The court dismissed that § 1983 claim for failure to state a claim, without prejudice to pursuing relief against that defendant in state court.

As to a possible Department of Correction employee, the court treated the allegation as a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim. It held that an adequate state-law remedy for an unauthorized loss of property generally prevents a federal due-process claim. Because New York law provides procedures for addressing such losses, the allegation did not state a due-process claim. The court said Moments could include facts in an amended complaint showing that the state-court procedures were inadequate.

Grievances. The court found that Moments’s allegations about unanswered or unaccepted grievances concerned the Department of Correction’s grievance procedures. A violation of state procedures, without more, does not establish a federal constitutional violation under § 1983. The court therefore found that she failed to state a federal claim based only on the alleged failure to process her grievances. It allowed her to amend if she could allege facts showing that her constitutional rights were violated, including facts about the adequacy of available state-court remedies.

Disposition

The court granted Moments 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must identify the people involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, describe injuries, and state the relief sought. The court permitted unidentified defendants to be named as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe,” while explaining that doing so does not pause the limitations period. No summons would issue at that time.

The court dismissed Moments’s § 1983 claim against “inmate cashier” for failure to state a claim, without prejudice to pursuing relief in state court. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not finally dismiss the remaining claims at that stage; instead, it allowed Moments to amend and warned that failure to do so within the permitted time could result in dismissal.