Sheppard v. Department of Corrections

Background

Cyril Sheppard, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center and proceeded without a lawyer, brought an action 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 with claims by 49 other detainees. Those claims were later separated into individual actions, and the amended complaint was docketed in each action.

The original complaint alleged unsafe living conditions, including sleeping areas in which inmates were less than 3–4 inches apart and shared facilities used by 50 inmates. It alleged that detainees had contracted or been exposed to COVID-19. Sheppard sought improved conditions, reduced housing capacity, monetary damages, and release for detainees meeting certain criteria. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Claims Against the Department of Corrections

The court held that the New York City Department of Correction could not be sued as a city agency. Any claim Sheppard intended to bring against that agency had to be brought against the City of New York. The court therefore dismissed the “Department of Corrections” from the action for failure to state a claim.

Claims Against the Other Defendants

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

In either situation, Sheppard had to allege an objectively serious risk to his health or safety and deliberate indifference to that risk. Deliberate indifference means, under the standards discussed by the court, that an official knowingly or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps to address a serious risk, with the precise mental-state standard depending on detention status. The court stated that negligence alone was not enough for a constitutional claim under § 1983.

The court found that the amended complaint did not contain enough facts to state a claim. It directed Sheppard to identify whether he was a pretrial detainee, the housing units where he was assigned, the specific conditions he challenged, facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm, and facts showing that each individual defendant was personally involved. If he sought release for himself, he also had to provide individualized allegations supporting that remedy.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Sheppard leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days. The new complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints and include the relevant defendants’ names and titles, the events and dates, locations, each defendant’s acts or omissions, resulting injuries, and the relief sought. The court directed the Clerk to mail the order to Sheppard and stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Sheppard failed to comply without showing good cause, the amended complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order.