Davidson v. Department of Corrections

Background

Willet Davidson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Department of Corrections, Commissioner Cynthia Brann, and other defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants were violating his federal constitutional rights by failing to protect him from contracting COVID-19 while he was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center.

Davidson originally filed the complaint with 49 other detainees. The original case was assigned to Judge Daniels, and Magistrate Judge Aaron directed that the detainees’ claims be separated into individual actions. This case was one of the resulting actions. The court had previously granted Davidson permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

The earlier amended complaint alleged unsafe conditions, including housing units without appropriate capacity limits for social distancing, sleeping areas with detainees placed three to four inches apart, and shared toilets, sinks, and showers. But the amended complaint did not explain specifically how the defendants violated Davidson’s constitutional rights.

Legal Standard

To state a claim under § 1983, a complaint must plausibly allege both that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated and that the violation was committed by a state actor—someone acting under state law.

The court explained that the governing constitutional provision depends on whether Davidson was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. In either event, he had to allege an objective element: conditions sufficiently serious to create an unreasonable risk of serious harm to his health or safety. He also had to allege a mental or subjective element showing the required level of fault by the responsible official. Negligence alone would not establish a constitutional violation.

For a convicted prisoner, the complaint would need to allege that an official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to health or safety. For a pretrial detainee, it would need to allege that the official intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to act reasonably to reduce a known or knowable excessive risk.

Ruling

The court held that the amended complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to state a claim under these standards. It therefore granted Davidson leave to file a second amended complaint using the attached form, rather than ruling that the alleged constitutional violations had or had not occurred.

The second amended complaint had to state whether Davidson was a pretrial detainee, identify the housing units involved, and describe the specific conditions he challenged. If he claimed that the defendants failed to follow capacity limits or other COVID-19 precautions, he had to provide facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm and deliberate indifference to that risk. He also had to describe the personal involvement of each individual defendant. Any request for release had to be supported by facts about his own circumstances, not only the conditions affecting other detainees.

The court ordered Davidson to submit the second amended complaint to the Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days of the order. The new complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. No summons would issue at that time. The order stated that if Davidson failed to comply and could not show good cause, the case would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judge Lorna G. Schofield signed the order.