Feliz v. Westchester Department of Corrections

Background

Hiram Alberto Feliz, who was detained at the Westchester County Jail and represented himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages. He alleged that on March 6, 2020, he tripped over a “huge crack” in the cement while playing basketball in the “F-2 pen rec yard” and injured his hand. He said the hand was initially assessed at a hospital as not broken, although he alleged that a bone was protruding, and that he was returned to the jail without treatment. After complaining for two weeks, he saw an orthopedist, who diagnosed a broken hand requiring surgery. The surgery occurred on June 14, 2020, and three pins were inserted. He also alleged pain, weight-related effects from being unable to exercise, and emotional distress after receiving incorrect information apparently intended for another detainee.

Screening and Claims

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to review prisoner complaints against governmental entities and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint contain enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The sole named defendant was the Westchester County Department of Correction. The court held that, under New York law, a municipal department that is only an administrative arm generally cannot be sued in its own name. If Feliz intended to sue Westchester County, he had to allege that a county policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that he had not done so.

The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement. A person cannot be held liable merely because that person supervised someone else. The complaint named no individual who was allegedly involved in the injury or delayed medical treatment.

Conditions and Medical Care

The court considered whether the allegations could state a deliberate-indifference claim. Deliberate indifference means, in this context, that an official intentionally imposed a harmful condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps to address a known or reasonably knowable serious risk. Because the court understood Feliz to have been a pretrial detainee, it applied the standard under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the standard for a convicted prisoner under the Eighth Amendment.

Regarding the cracked cement, the court held that the allegation described at most an ordinary slip-and-fall or negligence claim under state law. It did not show that a correctional official intentionally created the condition or recklessly failed to address an excessive risk that the official knew or should have known about.

Regarding medical care, the court assumed for purposes of the order that Feliz had alleged a sufficiently serious medical need. But it found that he had not identified any defendant who knew or should have known about that need and then disregarded it. The court noted that medical negligence or malpractice could arise under state law, but those claims generally would depend on the existence of a federal claim for the federal court to hear them together.

Ruling

Judge Louis L. Stanton granted Feliz leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to name the individuals allegedly involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide relevant dates, times, locations, injuries, and requested relief, and include the necessary information for each claim. The court permitted Feliz to use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if he did not yet know an individual’s name, while warning that this would not stop the limitations period from running.

The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court directed Feliz to submit it to the Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 20-CV-6392 (LLS). No summons would issue at that time. The order stated that if Feliz failed to comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.