Ford v. Aramark

Background

Kavon Denzel Ford, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1997e, alleging violations of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He sued Aramark Correctional Services, Westchester County, and Kevin Cheverko. Ford alleged problems involving food and hygiene, commissary prices and supplies, mail handling, legal materials, grievances, laundry, cell temperatures, sanitation, and fire-safety procedures at the jail.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly support relief. Because Ford was proceeding without a lawyer, the court read his allegations liberally, while noting that this did not permit the court to rewrite the complaint.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally requires a person incarcerated in a jail or prison to complete available grievance procedures before filing a federal conditions-of-confinement lawsuit. Defendants argued that Ford had not exhausted those procedures because the grievances attached to his complaint did not show that jail staff had received them.

The court denied the motion to dismiss on this ground. Ford alleged that jail officials intentionally failed to file his grievances, which could have made the grievance process unavailable to him. The court stated that the record presented at least a factual question about exhaustion and that the issue could be addressed after discovery.

Conditions-of-confinement claims

The court held that Ford had not adequately pleaded an injury from the allegedly cold, contaminated, or improperly portioned food. He alleged four specific incidents involving hair, stones, cold or improperly cooked food, and dirty trays, but alleged that he threw the food away and filed grievances rather than alleging a distinct and actual injury or illness. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the food claims without prejudice.

The court denied the motion to dismiss Ford’s cell-temperature claims. Ford alleged that he slept in a cell without heat while cold air blew through the ventilation system for an extended period during winter, that he was left shivering, and that jail officials ignored his grievances. The court found these allegations plausibly described a serious condition and deliberate indifference.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the dirty-blanket claim. Ford alleged that a dirty blanket caused rashes and breakouts, but the court found that he did not provide enough information about pain, duration, scarring, or other effects to show a sufficiently serious condition.

The court also granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the fire-sprinkler claims without prejudice. Ford alleged that the sprinkler in his cell was disabled, but did not allege facts showing that the jail lacked adequate and reliable fire protection overall or that the alleged condition created an unreasonable risk of serious future harm.

State-created liberty-interest claims

The court rejected Ford’s claim that New York’s commissary regulation created a protected liberty interest in having a commissary, particular items, or particular prices. The regulation made the commissary discretionary and did not impose the required mandatory limits on officials’ discretion. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the commissary claims with prejudice.

The court granted the motion to dismiss Ford’s fire-safety due-process claims. Even assuming, without deciding, that the cited regulations created a protected liberty interest, Ford had not provided non-conclusory facts showing that defendants deprived him of that interest.

The court also granted the motion to dismiss Ford’s claim that he had a broad, state-created liberty interest in jail conditions. The court found that Ford cited no authority showing that the New York minimum-jail-standards regulations created such an interest.

Access to the courts and grievances

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Ford’s claims based on mail tampering and charges for paper and legal envelopes without prejudice. Ford did not allege that the charges prejudiced an existing legal case, and his mail allegations involved only one or possibly two isolated incidents. He also did not allege an actual injury to his access to the courts.

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims based on officials’ failure to respond to grievances with prejudice. It held that jail grievance procedures do not themselves create a constitutional right, so a failure to process or answer a grievance does not independently support a claim under Section 1983.

Claims involving Westchester County, Aramark, and Cheverko

For claims against a municipality or an entity treated as a state actor, Section 1983 requires allegations that an official policy or widespread custom caused the constitutional violation. The court denied the motion to dismiss Ford’s claim against Westchester County concerning freezing temperatures in his cell. Ford alleged that Westchester maintained a policy or custom of keeping cell temperatures very low and activating cold air in winter, and he supplied allegations about his own experience and witnesses. The court found those allegations sufficient at the pleading stage to plausibly allege a widespread practice.

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against Cheverko in his individual capacity. Ford did not plead non-conclusory facts showing that Cheverko personally participated in a violation, learned of a violation and failed to remedy it, created or continued an unconstitutional policy, was grossly negligent in supervision, or acted with deliberate indifference. The court found that Cheverko appeared to have been sued based primarily on his high position at the jail.

Damages and conspiracy claims

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Ford’s claims for compensatory damages based on mental or emotional injuries without prejudice because the complaint did not allege a more-than-minimal physical injury. The court stated that this ruling did not reach possible punitive or nominal damages.

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Ford’s Section 1983 conspiracy claims because the complaint did not adequately plead an underlying claim supporting the alleged conspiracy. The court also dismissed any Section 1985(3) conspiracy claim because Ford did not allege the required discriminatory motive. The opinion states that the Section 1985(3) claim was dismissed but does not add a prejudice qualifier.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court allowed Ford to file an amended complaint by March 9, 2020, on claims not dismissed with prejudice. The court warned that if Ford did not timely amend and could not show good cause, claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice, with the original complaint remaining operative.