Batts v. Department of Corrections

Background

Darius Batts, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, brought this pro se action 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. The action originated as part of a complaint filed by Batts and 49 other VCBC detainees. The claims were later separated into individual actions.

The original allegations described unsafe living conditions, including sleeping areas in which detainees were less than 3–4 inches apart and shared toilets, sinks, and showers. The plaintiffs alleged that some detainees had contracted or been exposed to COVID-19. They sought improved conditions, reduced housing capacity, monetary damages, and release for detainees meeting certain criteria. The amended complaint provided fewer details and did not explain specifically how the defendants violated Batts’s constitutional rights.

Rulings

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Corrections because an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued under the cited New York City Charter provision and related case law. The opinion states that it was unclear whether Batts intended to sue that agency, but dismissed it from the action for failure to state a claim.

As to the remaining defendants, the court explained the elements of a claim under § 1983: a plaintiff must allege that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state law. Depending on whether Batts was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner, the claim would arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause or the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment. In either event, he had to allege sufficiently serious conditions and the required level of deliberate indifference or other culpable conduct described in the opinion.

The court did not decide whether the alleged COVID-19 conditions violated Batts’s constitutional rights. Instead, it held that the amended complaint lacked sufficient facts and granted Batts leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days. The court directed him to state whether he was a pretrial detainee, identify his housing units, describe the specific conditions, allege facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm, and explain how each defendant was personally involved. If he sought release, he also had to provide individualized allegations supporting that remedy.

Requirements for the Second Amended Complaint

The second amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original and amended complaints. Batts must name each defendant in the caption and statement of claim, or use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if a defendant’s name is unknown. The court stated that using a Doe designation would not stop the three-year limitations period from running. Batts must provide, as far as possible, the defendants’ names and titles, the relevant events and approximate dates, locations, facts showing what each defendant did or failed to do, the resulting injuries, and the relief requested.

The Clerk was directed to mail Batts a copy of the order and note service on the docket. No summons would issue at that time. The order states that if Batts failed to file a compliant second amended complaint within the permitted period and could not show good cause, the amended complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.