Corwell v. Westchester County

Background

Ziare Corwell, representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights while he was a pretrial detainee at the Westchester County Jail. The defendants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Corwell alleged that, on March 14, 2019, an altercation occurred between a correctional officer and another inmate. Corwell said he followed instructions to walk away from the incident, but members of the Emergency Response Team then rushed him with an electrical shield that shocked him, caused him to defecate in his clothing, and caused severe pain. He also alleged that he was not given a change of clothing despite asking Officer Moore for one. Corwell submitted a grievance on March 18, 2019.

Rule 10(b) and exhaustion

The defendants argued that the amended complaint should be dismissed because its allegations were not stated in numbered paragraphs. The court rejected that argument, explaining that Corwell’s three-page complaint used a court-provided form and contained succinct, understandable allegations. The court concluded that the lack of numbered paragraphs did not interfere with understanding the claims or prejudice the defendants.

The defendants also argued that Corwell had not exhausted required prison grievance procedures before filing suit. The court explained that dismissal on this basis is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) only when nonexhaustion is clear from the face of the complaint. Although the dates suggested Corwell might not have completed the grievance process before filing, the court found ambiguity and declined to dismiss on exhaustion grounds.

Excessive-force claim

For a pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim, the complaint must plausibly allege that the defendant deliberately used force and that the force was objectively unreasonable. The court found that Corwell plausibly alleged such a claim against Sergeant Davis and Officers Adames, Beltran, Cardillo, Cozier, Melendez, and Schirillo. Corwell alleged that these Emergency Response Team members used an active electrical shield against him even though they were responding to an incident that did not involve him.

The court did not accept the defendants’ contrary factual assertions at the motion-to-dismiss stage, including assertions that the shield was inactive, that Corwell did not report pain or show injury, and that the complaint did not identify which officer made contact. The court noted that it could consider such evidence at a later stage, such as summary judgment, but not to resolve the pleading motion.

The court also found a plausible claim against Assistant Warden Spaulding. Corwell alleged that he complained to her and that she responded to his grievance by misrepresenting that the force was incidental and necessary and that the shield had been inactive. The court concluded that these allegations sufficiently suggested supervisory responsibility for an alleged constitutional violation.

Claim concerning clothing

The court treated Corwell’s allegation about not receiving a change of clothing as a possible Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim based on deliberate indifference. Such a claim requires plausible allegations that the condition was sufficiently serious and that officials intentionally or recklessly failed to act with reasonable care despite knowing, or having reason to know, of the risk.

The court dismissed this claim. Corwell alleged that he repeatedly asked Officer Moore for new clothing, but he did not allege that any named defendant immediately received that request or denied it. His grievance was submitted four days after the incident, meaning that, at the earliest, Spaulding learned of the clothing issue four days afterward. The court concluded that the allegations did not show that a named defendant denied him clothing or intentionally or recklessly prevented him from laundering his clothing.

Claim against Westchester County

The court dismissed Corwell’s claim against Westchester County under the municipal-liability rule commonly called Monell. A municipality may be liable under § 1983 when an official policy or custom causes a constitutional injury. Corwell alleged that the County failed to train and supervise employees regarding the use of force and that jail staff had a pattern of using excessive force against inmates.

The court found these allegations conclusory and unsupported by facts showing that the County had a policy or custom causing the alleged injury. It therefore concluded that Corwell had not stated a plausible municipal-liability claim.

Disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim proceeds against Assistant Warden LaFonda Spaulding, Sergeant Alexander Davis, and Correctional Officers Juan Adames, Christopher Beltran, Dean Cardillo, Malik Cozier, Louis Melendez, and John Schirillo. All other claims were dismissed. The Clerk was directed to terminate Westchester County as a defendant, and the remaining defendants were ordered to answer by July 27, 2020.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Corwell permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.