Salaam v. Morgan

Background

Aziz Salaam, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. The case concerned events while Salaam was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility and working at the Corcraft Metal Fabrication Industry. He named Timothy Morgan and Maurice Peirsma, whom the opinion identifies as civilian Corcraft Industries Training Supervisors at that facility.

Salaam alleged that psychotropic mental-health medication sometimes caused him to fall asleep while sitting. In June 2019, he fell asleep in a bathroom stall at work. When he awoke, he saw Morgan’s face under the stall door, and Morgan demanded to see what was in Salaam’s hand. Later that day, Salaam was told to sign a Counsel and Reprimand form or be written up for sleeping on the toilet. Salaam alleged that Peirsma wrote the form under Morgan’s instructions and that it was placed in his work file. He also alleged that Morgan later made repeated comments that Salaam was probably sleeping on the toilet again. Salaam sought declaratory relief, an order requiring action, and money damages.

Screening standard

Because Salaam had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of an action or portion of an action that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint is read liberally but still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Sexual-harassment and abuse allegations

The court construed the complaint as asserting Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. It explained that verbal abuse, threats, and intimidation alone generally do not violate the Constitution without injury or damage. It also stated that sexual abuse of a prisoner may violate the Constitution, but allegations of threatened sexual assault or harassment without physical contact generally do not state a § 1983 claim. A substantial risk of serious harm may be actionable even if no attack occurs, but generalized fear without facts showing a serious risk is insufficient.

The court held that Salaam’s allegations did not state a constitutional violation because he did not allege inappropriate physical contact, physical harm caused by the defendants, or facts showing that he actually faced a serious threat of harm. The court granted him permission to amend to allege facts, if they existed, showing inappropriate contact or a significant risk of harm.

Medical-care allegations

The court also construed Salaam’s allegations as claiming inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment. Such a claim requires facts showing both an objectively serious medical condition and deliberate indifference—meaning that officials knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health or safety. Negligent or inadvertent inadequate care is not enough.

The court held that Salaam did not allege facts showing that his underlying mental-health condition was sufficiently serious that failing to treat it could cause significant injury or unnecessary pain. He also did not allege facts showing that either defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive health or safety risk. The court therefore concluded that he failed to state a deliberate-indifference claim.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because it was not clear that amendment would be futile, the court granted Salaam 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include all facts and claims Salaam wished to pursue. The court directed him, to the greatest extent possible, to include facts about inappropriate contact, physical harm, or a significant risk of harm, and to identify anyone he alleged was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.

The clerk was directed to mail the order to Salaam and record service. No summons would issue at that time. If Salaam did not comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal from the order.