Jenkins v. Officer S

Background

Darell Nautique Jenkins, who was incarcerated at Mid-State Correctional Facility when the order was issued, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, on January 17, 2018, while waiting in line to eat at Downstate Correctional Facility, an unidentified inmate slashed him from behind. Jenkins alleged that Officer S. saw the assault but only stepped between Jenkins and the inmate. Jenkins said this made him believe Officer S. had helped arrange the attack. He asserted an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Officer S. and John Doe (Inmate) and sought money damages.

The court had previously allowed Jenkins to proceed without paying the filing fee at the outset. Because Jenkins was a prisoner proceeding without paying that fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to include enough factual detail to make a claim plausible, while reading a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

Failure-to-Protect Claim

To state a failure-to-protect claim under § 1983, a prisoner must allege both a substantial risk of serious harm and deliberate indifference by a prison official. Deliberate indifference requires facts showing that the official knew of the substantial risk and disregarded it. Mere negligence is not enough for a federal constitutional claim.

The court held that Jenkins had not alleged facts showing that Officer S. participated in planning the attack, knew about it beforehand, or otherwise knew of a specific serious risk to Jenkins and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. The court found that Jenkins’s speculation that Officer S. had a role in arranging the attack was insufficient by itself.

Because the court concluded that amendment might not be futile, it granted Jenkins leave to amend rather than dismissing the action at that stage. The amended complaint had to explain how Officer S. or other staff failed to protect him and had to identify the defendants, relevant events, dates, locations, acts or omissions, injuries, and requested relief. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it.

Application for Counsel

Jenkins also asked the court to request volunteer legal counsel. The court considered that the merits of the case were the most important factor in deciding such a request, along with Jenkins’s efforts to obtain a lawyer and his ability to investigate and present the case without one. Because the proceedings were too early for the court to assess the merits, it denied the application for counsel without prejudice to renewal later.

Disposition

The court granted Jenkins leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. It directed that the amended complaint be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, labeled “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 19-CV-10728 (CM). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that, if Jenkins failed to comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court denied Jenkins’s application for counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.