Stennett v. New York State

Background

Donavan Stennett, who was detained at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center, proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, against the State of New York. He sought damages.

Stennett alleged that on March 24, 2025, another person in custody touched him inappropriately and spat in his face in a housing area at OBCC on Rikers Island. He alleged that correction officers Ventura and Hinkson witnessed the incident and that it was recorded on video. The officers were mentioned in the body of the amended complaint but were not named as defendants in the caption.

Chief Judge Swain had previously directed Stennett to amend his complaint to address defects in the original pleading. After reviewing the amended complaint, the court found that it was virtually identical to the original complaint.

Screening standard

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires federal courts to review lawsuits filed by prisoners seeking relief from governmental entities or their employees. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims against New York State

The court dismissed Stennett’s claims against New York State based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court explained that New York had not waived its immunity from this federal lawsuit and that Congress had not removed that immunity for Stennett’s § 1983 claims. The court therefore dismissed the claims for damages against the State under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

Failure-to-protect claim

The court also considered whether the allegations stated a constitutional failure-to-protect claim against the correction officers, even though Stennett had not named them as defendants. For a detained person to state this type of claim, the allegations must show both an objectively serious risk of harm and that an officer acted intentionally or recklessly failed to use reasonable care despite knowing, or reasonably needing to know, that the risk was excessive.

The court found that Stennett did not allege that he knew about a risk of assault before the incident or told anyone about such a risk. He also did not allege that the Department of Correction or the officers knew of a risk posed by the person who touched and spat on him. Nor did he allege that the officers failed to act promptly to prevent additional harm or otherwise acted improperly after witnessing the incident. Even assuming the risk was objectively serious, the court concluded that the amended complaint did not allege deliberate indifference and dismissed this claim for failure to state a claim.

State-law claims

Because the court dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Stennett may have been asserting.

Further amendment and disposition

The court declined to give Stennett another opportunity to amend because he had already been allowed to amend and the amended complaint gave no indication that the defects could be cured through another amendment. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and failure to state a claim, declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.