Struthers v. Brann

Background

Eon Struthers filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. He alleged that the defendants were violating his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from contracting COVID-19 while he was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center.

The case originated with a complaint filed by Struthers and 49 other detainees. In an earlier related proceeding, the court severed the detainees’ claims and directed that each person’s claims proceed in a separate action. The amended complaint filed in that proceeding was docketed in Struthers’s separate case, but it contained fewer details than the original complaint and did not explain specifically how the defendants violated his constitutional rights.

The original allegations described crowded living conditions, including sleeping areas where detainees were less than 3–4 inches apart and shared toilets, sinks, and showers with 50 other inmates. The complaint alleged that some detainees had contracted or been exposed to COVID-19. Struthers sought improved conditions, monetary damages, and release for detainees meeting certain criteria.

Claims and legal standards

The court explained that a claim under Section 1983 must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and action by a person acting under state law.

Depending on whether Struthers was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner, his conditions-of-confinement claims would arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause or the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Under either framework, he had to allege that the conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm to his health or safety. The required showing about the official’s state of mind differs: a convicted prisoner must allege that an official knew of and disregarded the risk, while a pretrial detainee must allege intentional action or reckless failure to use reasonable care even though the official knew or should have known of the excessive risk. Mere negligence is not enough for a federal constitutional claim under Section 1983.

Court’s analysis

The court ruled that the claims against the “Department of Corrections” had to be dismissed because an agency of New York City is not an entity that can be sued under the circumstances described in the opinion. The court’s conclusion expressly dismissed the Department of Corrections from the action for failure to state a claim.

As to the remaining defendants—Cynthia Brann, Patsy Yang, and Margaret Egan—the court found that the amended complaint did not contain enough facts to state a claim. The court did not decide that the alleged COVID-19 conditions violated Struthers’s constitutional rights. Instead, it directed Struthers to provide more specific allegations.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Struthers leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days. The new complaint must identify the relevant people and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates or approximate dates and locations, explain how the conduct violated Struthers’s rights, describe his injuries, and state the relief he seeks. It must also provide addresses for named defendants. If Struthers seeks release, he must include individualized allegations supporting that relief.

The second amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaint. The court directed that it be submitted to the Pro Se Intake Unit, labeled “Second Amended Complaint,” and identify docket number 20-CV-9412 (JPC). No summons would issue at that time. The order warned that failure to comply within the allowed period, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.