Wheeler v. NYC DOC

Background

Brett E. Wheeler, a pretrial detainee housed at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that on June 6, 2018, another prisoner threw hot water at him; an unidentified correction officer failed to protect him; and correctional or medical staff failed to provide proper medical treatment. He alleged injuries to his left forearm and chest and sought money damages.

The court had previously allowed Wheeler to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. Because he was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. It also explained that self-represented pleadings are read liberally but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims Against the Department of Correction and the City

The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Correction because, under New York City law, a city agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued. Because the complaint showed a clear intention to assert claims against New York City, the court directed the Clerk of Court to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York as a defendant. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert.

To state a claim against the City, Wheeler had to allege facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of his constitutional rights. The court found that he had not alleged facts suggesting that a city policy, custom, or practice caused his injuries. Because a self-represented complaint should generally be given at least one opportunity to be amended when it might support a valid claim, the court allowed Wheeler to amend.

Conditions-of-Confinement Claims

The court treated Wheeler’s allegations about the failure to protect him and the failure to provide medical care as Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims concerning the conditions of his confinement. Because Wheeler was a pretrial detainee, the court applied the standard for deliberate indifference to conditions posing a serious threat to health or safety.

A conditions-of-confinement claim requires facts showing both an objectively serious condition and that the defendant intentionally imposed it or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing, or having reason to know, that it created an excessive risk to the detainee’s health or safety. Mere negligence does not establish a federal constitutional violation under § 1983.

For the failure-to-protect claim, the court found that Wheeler had not alleged facts showing that a correction official knew of a specific excessive risk to his health or safety and failed to take reasonable protective measures. The court allowed him to amend by identifying the individuals involved and explaining how each person was personally involved and knew of the specific serious risk.

For the medical-care claim, the court found that Wheeler had not alleged facts showing that he suffered from a sufficiently serious medical condition or that correctional or medical staff knew, or should have known, that his medical problems posed an excessive risk and then recklessly failed to provide reasonable care. The court allowed him to amend by describing his serious medical conditions, identifying the individuals who denied or interfered with his medical care, and explaining what each person did.

Request for Counsel

Wheeler asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer. The court denied that request without prejudice to renewal later because the case was at too early a stage for the court to assess its merits.

Order and Required Amendment

The court granted Wheeler leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to identify the individuals involved, provide facts about what each defendant did or failed to do, state when and where the events occurred, describe the injuries, explain how the conduct violated his federal rights, and state the relief sought. If he did not know a defendant’s name, he could use a John Doe or Jane Doe designation, but the court stated that doing so would not stop the three-year limitations period from running.

The court directed the Clerk to dismiss the New York City Department of Correction from the action and add the City of New York as a defendant. It denied Wheeler’s application for counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. It also stated that no summons would issue at that time and that, absent a timely amended complaint or good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.