Allen v. Stringer

Background

Doran Allen brought this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state or local officials for violating constitutional rights. At the time of the events, Allen was a pretrial detainee at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. He alleged that, on August 16, 2018, he was carrying breakfast trays down a staircase when he asked Officer Figuerra for help. According to the complaint, Figuerra told him that carrying the trays was his job and told him to finish the task.

Allen alleged that he then slipped on a broken part of the step and fell to the bottom of the stairs. He said he twisted his neck and back, suffered a slipped disc, and continued to experience headaches. A claim attached to the complaint described the stairwell as wet. Allen named Scott Stringer, the New York City Comptroller, and the WARDEN, AMKC C-95, as defendants. He sought $2 million in damages.

Legal standard

Because Allen was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, and because he was a prisoner suing government defendants, the court was required to screen his complaint. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought damages from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it had to read a complaint filed without a lawyer generously, but the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court treated Allen’s conditions-of-confinement claims as arising under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because he was a pretrial detainee. Such a claim requires allegations that the conditions posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the defendant intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing, or having reason to know, of an excessive risk.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that allegations of slipping on a cracked or wet floor described an ordinary negligence claim under state law rather than a constitutional violation. It cited decisions holding that wet or cracked floors generally do not satisfy the requirement of an objectively serious unconstitutional condition. The court also stated that negligence by a correctional official is not enough to establish a federal constitutional violation under § 1983.

Allen attempted to allege that a supervisor had created a policy or custom violating his constitutional rights. The court explained that a municipality can be liable under § 1983 only when a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. A claim against the warden in an official capacity would effectively be a claim against New York City. But the court found that Figuerra’s alleged refusal to help carry the trays or wait for another person did not amount to a City policy or custom. Because there was no adequately alleged constitutional violation, Allen also failed to show that a policy or custom caused one.

The court further noted that Allen did not allege that the warden personally did or failed to do anything violating his rights. It said that any individual-capacity claim against the warden would fail for lack of personal involvement. Allen also did not allege that Stringer was personally involved.

Disposition

The court declined to give Allen permission to amend because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The complaint filed without advance payment of fees was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—and dismissed Allen’s state-law claims without prejudice to refiling them in an appropriate forum. Judge Louis L. Stanton directed the Clerk of Court to mail Allen a copy of the order and record service on the docket.