Coston v. NYS DOCCS

Background

The Clerk’s Office opened this action after receiving Ashante Coston’s letter. Coston was incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. Because the filing was a letter, the court could not determine clearly who Coston intended to name as defendants.

Coston described an incident on December 27, 2019. A sergeant on duty allegedly forced him to leave the mess hall line and return to his housing unit. Sergeant Merrit allegedly made harsh comments about Coston’s religion, including saying, “You’re a little Muslim, you’ll be okay.” Officer Cannon allegedly said she would look into obtaining a food tray, but Coston did not receive one and ate bread and juice given to him by another prisoner. Coston also alleged that his keeplock status was illegal and unofficial because it did not come with a ticket, and that he had been treated unfairly and harshly.

Legal standards

The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s screening requirement for prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or their employees. At screening, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court must read a complaint from a person without a lawyer liberally, but the complaint still must give a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and must include enough facts to make the claim plausible.

For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state law. The plaintiff must also allege each defendant’s direct and personal involvement; a person generally cannot be held liable merely because that person supervised someone else.

Analysis

Unidentified defendants and personal involvement. The court granted Coston permission to amend so he could identify the individual defendants and explain how each personally participated in violating his federal rights.

Missed meal. The court treated the allegation about one denied meal as a possible Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim. Such a claim requires facts showing both an excessive risk to health or safety and deliberate indifference to that risk. The court stated that an isolated denial of a meal generally does not constitute a constitutional deprivation and found that Coston had not specifically alleged how the missed meal created a substantial risk of harm or that the defendants knowingly disregarded such a risk. The court allowed Coston to add facts about this claim in an amended complaint.

Religion-related comments. The court ruled that verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, and harsh comments, without injury or other damage, generally do not violate the Constitution under § 1983. It also considered whether the comments could support claims under the First Amendment’s protection for religious exercise or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The court found that the alleged negative comments did not show substantial interference with or burdening of Coston’s religious practices. It nevertheless granted leave to replead those claims if Coston could allege facts showing that named individuals substantially burdened or interfered with his religious practices.

Keeplock status. The court treated the allegation about keeplock as a possible procedural due process claim. Such a claim requires a protected liberty or property interest and a showing of what process was due. Coston did not explain why he was placed in keeplock, whether disciplinary proceedings occurred, why any proceedings were inadequate, or whether the conditions imposed an atypical and significant hardship compared with ordinary prison life. The court granted leave to amend with more facts supporting this claim.

Disposition and amendment requirements

The court granted Coston leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. He had to name the individuals he alleged were involved, in both the caption and the statement of claim, and could use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if he did not yet know a defendant’s name. He also had to provide facts about what each defendant did or failed to do, the dates and locations of events, the rights allegedly violated, his injuries, and the relief requested. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Coston a copy of the order and noted that no summons would issue at that time. It stated that if Coston 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 permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.