DeJesus v. Department of Corrections

Background

Christopher DeJesus, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights by failing to protect him from contracting COVID-19. The original complaint was filed by DeJesus and 49 other detainees. The claims were later separated into individual cases, and this action was opened as one of those severed cases.

The original complaint alleged unsafe conditions, including housing without adequate capacity limits for social distancing, sleeping areas where detainees were less than three to four inches apart, and shared toilets, sinks, and showers used by 50 detainees. The requested relief included improved conditions, reduced housing capacity, money damages, and release for detainees meeting certain criteria. The amended complaint contained fewer details and did not identify how the defendants specifically violated DeJesus’s constitutional rights.

Claims and Legal Standards

The court explained that a claim under Section 1983 requires allegations that a constitutional or federal statutory right was violated by a person acting under state law. Depending on whether DeJesus was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner, his conditions claim would arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause or the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

In either situation, he had to allege that the conditions posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm to his health or safety. He also had to allege the required mental state: for a convicted prisoner, that an official knew of and disregarded a substantial risk; for a pretrial detainee, that an official intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to act with reasonable care despite knowing, or having reason to know, of an excessive risk. Mere negligence would not be enough.

Rulings

The court dismissed the “Department of Corrections” from the action for failure to state a claim because an agency of New York City is not an entity that can be sued separately. The opinion stated that it was unclear whether DeJesus intended to sue that agency, but held that the claims against it could not proceed.

As to the remaining defendants, the court concluded that the amended complaint did not contain enough facts to state a claim. The court directed DeJesus to identify whether he was a pretrial detainee, the housing units involved, the specific conditions he challenged, facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm, facts showing deliberate indifference or the applicable detainee standard, and facts showing each individual defendant’s personal involvement. If he sought release, he was also directed to provide individualized allegations supporting that remedy.

Leave to Amend and Instructions

The court granted DeJesus leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days. The second amended complaint had to name the defendants in both the caption and the statement of claim, describe the relevant facts for each claim and defendant, provide available addresses, identify when and where events occurred, describe injuries and requested relief, and include all claims and facts he wished to maintain. The second amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier pleadings.

The court permitted the use of “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for defendants whose names DeJesus did not know, but explained that doing so would not pause the three-year statute of limitations. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to DeJesus and note service on the docket. No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that failure to file a compliant second amended complaint within the allowed period, without good cause, could result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.