Stennett v. New York State

Background

Donavan Stennett, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that he was a pretrial detainee at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island. He stated that on December 1, 2024, another detainee lifted him approximately six or seven feet into the air and dropped him, breaking his left foot. He also submitted a statement saying that a detainee had entered the area where he slept and attacked him, and that this was the second time he had been attacked while in the custody of the Department of Correction.

Stennett sued New York State. He did not identify the relief he wanted. The court treated the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.

Screening and rulings

Because Stennett was a prisoner seeking relief against a governmental entity, the court screened the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statutes. Those statutes require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims against New York State. The court noted that Stennett alleged events occurring while he was in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction, not the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. The court therefore found it unclear why he sued New York State. It also held that New York had not waived its protection under the Eleventh Amendment, and that Congress had not removed that protection through Section 1983. The court dismissed Stennett’s Section 1983 claims against New York State on that basis.

Failure-to-protect claim. The court construed Stennett’s allegations as claiming that correctional officers failed to protect him from a serious risk of assault, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. For such a claim, a pretrial detainee must allege both an objectively serious risk of harm and that an officer acted deliberately or recklessly by failing to take reasonable steps to reduce a known excessive risk.

The court found that Stennett did not allege that he knew about the risk of assault before it occurred or told anyone about that risk. He also did not allege that the Department of Correction or individual officers had independent information about the detainee who assaulted him. In addition, he did not allege that officers who observed the incident failed to respond promptly to prevent additional harm or otherwise acted improperly. The court held that these allegations failed to state a failure-to-protect claim and dismissed it under the prisoner-screening statute.

Opportunity to amend and disposition

Because additional facts might allow Stennett to state a failure-to-protect claim, the court granted him leave to amend. He has 60 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint naming the individuals personally involved and describing their actions or omissions, the relevant events, the injuries, and the relief sought. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims he wants to preserve must be repeated.

The court directed Stennett to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 25-CV-2234 (LTS). No summons will issue at this time. If he does not timely amend and cannot show good cause, the order states that the Section 1983 claims will be dismissed and that the court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.