Rivera v. Westchester County

Background

Angel Rivera, proceeding without a lawyer and incarcerated at Westchester County Jail, sued Westchester County; Aramark Correctional Services, LLC; two Aramark employees; and several Westchester County Department of Correction officials. The claims were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a person to seek relief for a violation of federal rights by someone acting under state law.

Rivera alleged that, beginning in June 2018, he repeatedly received meals containing undercooked meat, overcooked food, stale or moldy bread, mold-covered trays and juice containers, small portions, and food allegedly left over from earlier meals. He also alleged that he found human hair in meals, that kitchen workers lacked appropriate protective equipment, and that the kitchen contained flies, mice, and rats. He claimed that the food caused weight loss, dehydration, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headaches, blurred vision, hunger, and stomach cramps.

Rivera further alleged that jail staff refused to accept two food-related grievances. He claimed that the County and its officials knew about the food and sanitation problems through lawsuits, grievances, complaints, and daily meetings but failed to correct them. He sought compensatory and punitive damages.

Prior proceedings and motion

The court had previously granted the Aramark defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Rivera’s claims against them without prejudice. The motion addressed in this opinion was filed by Westchester County, Joseph K. Spano, Leandro Diaz, Eric Middleton, Francis Delgrosso, and Karl Vollmer, referred to collectively as the County Defendants. Rivera did not oppose the motion.

The County Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. They argued, among other things, that Rivera failed to allege a municipal policy or custom causing a constitutional violation, failed to allege the individual officials’ personal involvement, and had no constitutional right to an internal prison grievance procedure.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the rule that a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible, while accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and reading a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally.

Claims against the County and officials in their official capacities

The court analyzed Rivera’s municipal-liability claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services. A Monell claim requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege that a municipal policy or custom caused the violation of a federal right; a municipality cannot be held liable merely because it employs someone who committed a wrong.

The court held that Rivera’s references to previous lawsuits, grievances, and complaints were too general to support an inference that the County acted with deliberate indifference. He did not provide details about the contents, number, or timing of those earlier matters. The court also held that Rivera’s failure-to-supervise allegations did not identify a specific training or supervision deficiency. His assertion that inmate workers were not properly supervised was a general statement rather than a factual explanation of what training or supervision was missing.

The court did not decide whether Rivera’s allegations that officials refused to accept food-related grievances showed an official policy. It held that, even if they did, Rivera could not base a civil-rights claim on that conduct because prisoners do not have a constitutional right to a prison grievance procedure or to have grievances investigated.

The court therefore held that Rivera failed to allege a policy or custom that deprived him of a constitutional right. It dismissed the claims against Westchester County and against Spano, Diaz, Middleton, Delgrosso, and Vollmer in their official capacities.

Claims against officials in their individual capacities

For individual liability under Section 1983, Rivera had to plausibly allege each official’s personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that Rivera did not provide facts showing what the officials knew about the food problems or when they knew it. The complaint also did not adequately allege that they directly participated in serving the food, created a policy or custom of serving poor food, were grossly negligent in supervising others, or acted with deliberate indifference.

The court did not decide whether the allegation that Delgrosso and higher-ranking officials directed sergeants not to accept food-related grievances was enough to show personal involvement. It held that, even if it were, the alleged failure to process grievances did not violate a constitutional right.

The court also noted that the County Defendants had argued that the complaint failed to allege a constitutional violation based on the conditions of confinement. Because the complaint was being dismissed for failure to state a municipal-liability claim and failure to adequately allege personal involvement, the court did not resolve that additional argument.

Disposition

The court granted the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because this was the first adjudication of Rivera’s claims against those defendants, the dismissal was without prejudice. Rivera could file an amended complaint within 30 days of the opinion’s date. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the existing complaint and must include all claims, facts, and exhibits he wanted the court to consider. The court warned that failure to meet the deadline could result in dismissal with prejudice. Judge Kenneth M. Karas directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and mail Rivera a copy of the opinion.