Karelefsky v. Department of Corrections

Background

Matthew Karelefsky brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights. He was detained at the George R. Vierno Center and represented himself. He originally filed the complaint with 49 other detainees at the Vernon C. Bain Center. The court explained that the earlier combined case was divided so that each detainee’s claims could proceed in a separate action.

The original complaint alleged unsafe housing conditions, including sleeping areas where detainees were less than 3–4 inches apart and shared toilets, sinks, and showers with 50 other detainees. Karelefsky alleged that some detainees had contracted or been exposed to COVID-19 because of these conditions. The requested relief included reduced housing capacity, monetary damages, and release of detainees meeting certain criteria.

The amended complaint contained fewer details and did not explain specifically how the defendants violated Karelefsky’s constitutional rights.

Legal standards

The court stated that a claim under Section 1983 requires allegations that a constitutional or federal statutory right was violated by a person acting under state law. For conditions-of-confinement claims, a plaintiff must allege that the conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm to health or safety and that the responsible official acted with the required level of deliberate indifference.

The required mental state depends on whether the person was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. A convicted prisoner must allege that an official knew about and disregarded an excessive risk. A pretrial detainee must allege that an official intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to act with reasonable care even though the official knew, or should have known, about the excessive risk. The court noted that negligence alone is not enough for a constitutional claim under Section 1983.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the Department of Correction had to be dismissed because a New York City agency is not an entity that can be sued. The opinion said it was unclear whether Karelefsky intended to sue the agency, but dismissed the agency from the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

As to the remaining defendants, the court found that the amended complaint did not contain enough facts to state a claim. It directed Karelefsky to identify whether he was a pretrial detainee, the housing units where he was assigned, the specific conditions in those units, facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm, and facts showing that each individual defendant was personally involved.

The court also directed that any request for release include individualized allegations supporting that remedy. It did not state whether Karelefsky was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner.

Disposition

The court granted Karelefsky leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days. The second amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the earlier amended complaint and include the facts and claims he wished to maintain. The order required him to submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Second Amended Complaint,” and use docket number 20-CV-9485 (JGK). No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that, if Karelefsky failed to comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judge John G. Koeltl directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Karelefsky and record service on the docket.