Hickman v. The City of New York

Background

Quandell Hickman, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking money damages and an injunction. He alleged that defendants The City of New York, Captain Christian, and Correction Officer Bordeaus violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. The opinion states that the court understood Hickman to be asserting claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

Hickman alleged that, on March 20, 2020, Captain Christian sprayed mace at him and other inmates after they had returned to a bus and complied with her command to get on the ground. He also described other incidents involving the release of mace or oleoresin capsicum spray, including incidents on May 17 and May 22, 2020, involving Bordeaus. Hickman alleged headaches, vomiting, a runny nose, breathing problems, unconsciousness, and mental and emotional harm, and said he did not receive medical attention.

Hickman asked the court to appoint a lawyer. He said that he was a layperson, that the law library was closed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that his attempts to contact lawyers had been unsuccessful.

Legal standard for appointing counsel

The court explained that civil litigants generally have no constitutional right to appointed counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, a court may ask a lawyer to represent someone who cannot afford one. The court first considers whether the claims appear likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, it considers additional factors, including the person’s ability to obtain a lawyer independently, the person’s ability to handle the case without assistance, the complexity of the factual and legal issues, and whether the case will require effective cross-examination.

Excessive-force allegations

For a pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim, the relevant question is whether the force was purposely or knowingly used and was objectively unreasonable. The court considers the need for force, the amount of force used, the injury, efforts to limit the force, the security problem, the threat reasonably perceived, and whether the detainee was resisting.

The court found that Hickman’s claim arising from the March 20 bus incident appeared likely to have substance. Hickman alleged that Captain Christian used mace after the disturbance had ended, after he had complied with her orders, and when he no longer posed an immediate threat. The court stated that chemical agents are a significant form of force and should not be used lightly or gratuitously against someone who is complying or poses no immediate threat.

The court reached a different conclusion about Bordeaus’s alleged use of spray on May 17 and May 22 and the other spray incidents. It found that Hickman had not provided enough factual detail about the circumstances in which the spray was released to show that the force was objectively unreasonable.

Medical-care allegations

A pretrial detainee claiming deliberate indifference to serious medical needs must show both that the medical condition was sufficiently serious and that the official intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps to reduce a known excessive health or safety risk.

The court found that Hickman had not alleged enough to satisfy either part of that standard. It stated that temporary effects of chemical spray generally do not qualify as serious medical needs because they do not produce death, degeneration, or extreme pain. The court also found that Hickman had not alleged facts showing that the defendants knew or should have known that he required medical attention. In particular, he did not allege that he requested medical care or provide context allowing the court to infer that the defendants should have known he was injured.

Ruling

After considering the additional appointment-of-counsel factors, the court found that Hickman had tried to obtain representation and that counsel would be important because credibility disputes and cross-examination were likely to play a major role. The court also considered Hickman’s stated lack of legal knowledge and lack of access to a law library.

The court granted Hickman’s application for appointment of counsel, identified as Docket Entry No. 3, and directed the Office of Pro Se Litigation for the judicial district to request pro bono counsel under the applicable procedures. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Hickman a copy of the Memorandum and Order.