Evans v. Department of Corrections

Background

James Evans, who was proceeding without a lawyer, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants were violating his federal constitutional rights by failing to protect him from contracting COVID-19 at the Vernon C. Bain Center. The action arose after claims from a larger prisoner lawsuit were separated into individual cases. Evans had signed an amended complaint filed in that earlier related proceeding, and his claims were then opened as this separate action.

The complaint alleged generally that prisoners were housed in unsafe conditions, including insufficient space for social distancing, and that some detainees had contracted or been exposed to COVID-19. The amended complaint did not provide enough detail about how the defendants violated Evans’s constitutional rights. The court had previously allowed Evans to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

Department of Corrections

The court stated that the Department of Corrections is an agency of the City of New York and is not an entity that can be sued separately. Because it was unclear whether Evans intended to sue that agency, the court directed him to name proper defendants other than the Department of Corrections in his second amended complaint.

Requirements for Evans’s claim

The court explained that a claim under Section 1983 requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state authority. If Evans was a pretrial detainee, his claim would arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process protections. If he was a convicted prisoner, it would arise under the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Under either standard, Evans had to allege that the conditions were sufficiently serious to create an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the defendants acted with the required level of deliberate indifference. The court explained that the required mental state differs depending on whether a person is a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. Mere negligence by a correctional official would not establish a federal constitutional violation under Section 1983.

Leave to amend

The court concluded that the existing complaint might not state a claim under these standards and granted Evans leave to file a second amended complaint. The new complaint must identify the defendants who were personally involved, describe the relevant facts and conditions, state when and where events occurred, describe the injuries, and identify the relief sought. Evans was directed to state whether he was a pretrial detainee, identify the housing units involved, and provide facts showing a serious health or safety risk and the defendants’ deliberate indifference to that risk.

The court also explained that the second amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. Evans had to submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, by April 12, 2021. No summons would issue at that time. If he failed to comply and could not show good cause, the court would recommend dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave granted Evans leave to file a second amended complaint. The order did not decide the merits of whether the defendants violated Evans’s constitutional rights.