Brown v. NYCDOC MDC

Background

Shamone Brown brought a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. Brown alleged that, on or about May 8, 2019, three inmates entered his cell and raped and physically assaulted him. He alleged that two correction officers, identified as John Doe officers, left their post and allowed the assault to happen. He sued the Warden of MDC, the two John Doe correction officers, and the City of New York, seeking money damages.

The opinion states that Brown was a pretrial detainee when the incident occurred and was detained at the Otis Bantum Correctional Facility on Rikers Island when he filed the action. Brown had also filed a notice of claim with the New York City Comptroller, but the claim was rejected as untimely under the applicable filing requirements.

Court’s Analysis

Because Brown was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under the federal prisoner-litigation screening statutes. Those statutes require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual detail to make a claimed entitlement to relief plausible.

For the claim against the City of New York, the court explained that a municipality is not liable under § 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly did something wrong. A plaintiff must allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused the constitutional violation. The court found that Brown had not alleged facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the assault or the alleged failure to protect him. It therefore dismissed Brown’s § 1983 claims against the City of New York for failure to state a claim.

For the failure-to-protect allegations, the court explained that a pretrial detainee must allege both a serious risk of harm and that the officer knew or should have known about that risk but deliberately failed to take reasonable steps to reduce it. Brown alleged only that the correction officers left their post and thereby allowed the assault to happen. The court found that he had not alleged facts showing that the officers knew or should have known, before the attack, that the other inmates posed a substantial risk of serious harm, or that the officers acted recklessly in failing to reduce or eliminate that risk. The court stated that Brown therefore failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Disposition

The court granted Brown leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. It instructed him to identify the people involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide relevant dates, times, locations, injuries, and requested relief, and provide addresses for named defendants when possible. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The order stated that no summons would issue at that time and that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the permitted period, without good cause, would result in dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.