Moments v. Adams

Background

Betta Moments, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, described herself as a “black Transwoman Female.” She sued Mayor Eric Adams and other defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local actors. Moments alleged that, while she was detained on Rikers Island, the jail commissary did not offer cosmetic products “suitable for black people.” She characterized this as bias and racism, alleged mental depression and humiliation, and sought $1.4 million in damages.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legally recognized claim.

Equal Protection Claim

The court liberally construed the complaint as asserting racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. To state that claim, Moments had to plausibly allege that the defendants acted with discriminatory intent or purpose—that they selected or continued a course of action at least partly because of its harmful effect on an identifiable group, rather than merely despite that effect.

The court held that Moments did not meet that requirement. Her allegations that the commissary contract was biased toward Black people and that the situation was “pure bias and racist” were conclusory assertions. The court explained that such assertions are not presumed true at the motion-to-dismiss stage and did not plausibly show discriminatory intent.

Conditions-of-Confinement Claim

The court also considered whether the complaint alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Moments was a pretrial detainee during the events at issue, the court explained that this claim would arise under the Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment, although the relevant standards were the same.

A conditions-of-confinement claim requires an objectively serious deprivation and a required mental state by the official. The court held that the failure to stock cosmetics matching Moments’s complexion did not amount to deprivation of a basic human need or otherwise qualify as objectively serious. The court also held that Moments did not allege that any defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to her health or safety. The court stated that the defects in this claim were substantive and that amendment would be futile.

Disposition

The court GRANTS the defendants’ motion and DISMISSES Moments’s Complaint. Because Moments was proceeding without a lawyer, the court grants her leave to amend the complaint to state a race-discrimination claim under the Equal Protection Clause. She must file any amended complaint within thirty days of the memorandum opinion and order. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

The court did not reach the defendants’ other dismissal arguments, except to reject their argument that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court explained that exhaustion is an affirmative defense and that dismissal on that ground is proper at this stage only when failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint; the court said that was not the case here.

If Moments does not file an amended complaint by the deadline, the court will direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the case. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the defendants’ motion and mail Moments the opinion, order, and attached amended-complaint form.