Brooks v. Westchester County Jail

Background

Shawn Brooks, proceeding pro se (without a lawyer) and in forma pauperis (without paying the filing fee), filed a complaint dated November 4, 2019. The court had previously dismissed Westchester County Jail and directed service on the remaining defendants. The clerk later docketed a second document, also titled “complaint” and dated November 4, 2019, as an amended complaint. The two complaints contained similar allegations but named some different defendants.

The court construed the two complaints together as a single complaint. Brooks alleged that C.O. Hughes used excessive force by punching him in the face. He also alleged that jail officials placed him in restrictive confinement for 60 days before the investigation was complete, that certain officials failed to investigate or violated due process, and that officials refused to accept or denied his inmate grievance. The first complaint named U.S. Probation Officer Veronica Dignam; the second named Captain Spaulding, Sgt. Dawson, and Sgt. Reyes Rhodes.

Screening of the Claims

Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), the court was required to dismiss any part of a prisoner’s fee-free complaint that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant.

The court concluded that the allegations against C.O. Hughes could state a valid excessive-force claim. It found that the other claims did not state valid claims for relief:

- Westchester County Jail was not a “person” that could be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. - The allegations about 60 days of restrictive confinement did not allege conditions more severe than usual. The court explained that confinement of less than 101 days generally does not create a protected liberty interest unless the conditions are unusually harsh. - The allegations that officials failed to investigate, sent Brooks to a special housing unit, or violated due process were conclusory and did not provide enough factual detail to support a claim. - Refusing to accept or denying an inmate grievance did not support a § 1983 claim because prison grievance procedures are not constitutionally required. - Although Sgt. Reyes Rhodes appeared in the second complaint’s caption, no allegations were made against him.

Disposition

The court dismissed all claims other than the excessive-force claim against C.O. Hughes. It ordered that the two complaints be treated as one complaint and directed the clerk to terminate Captain Johnson, Sgt. Hollis, Warden Middleton, Westchester County Jail, Captain Robert, Sgt. Dawson, Captain Spaulding, and U.S. Probation Officer Veronica Dignam from the docket. It separately dismissed any claims against Sgt. Reyes Rhodes.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Brooks permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The court also stated that, if Brooks intended to pursue a state habeas petition, he had to file it separately from this civil action.