Smith v. Department of Corrections

Background

Willie Smith, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights by failing to protect him from contracting COVID-19. The case originally was filed with claims by 49 other prisoners. Those claims were separated into individual civil actions, and Smith’s case received docket number 1:20-cv-09501.

The earlier pleadings alleged unsafe housing conditions, including insufficient capacity limits for social distancing, prisoners sleeping very close together, and shared toilets, sinks, and showers. They also alleged that some detainees had contracted or been exposed to COVID-19. The requested relief included improved conditions, reduced housing capacity, money damages, and release for detainees meeting certain criteria.

The court had allowed Smith to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. It explained that prisoners still must pay the full filing fee over time even when granted that permission.

Legal standard

To state a claim under Section 1983, Smith had to allege both that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state law. The court explained that the applicable constitutional provision would depend on whether Smith was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner.

Regardless of that status, Smith had to allege that the conditions created 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 generally means that an official knew about and disregarded an excessive risk. For a pretrial detainee, it means that an official intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps to reduce a known excessive risk. Mere negligence would not be enough.

Court’s action

The court determined that Smith’s amended complaint did not contain enough facts to state a claim and granted him leave to file a second amended complaint. The order required Smith to state whether he was a pretrial detainee, identify his housing unit or units, describe the specific conditions he challenged, and provide facts showing a serious risk and the defendants’ deliberate indifference or other required mental state.

If Smith named individual defendants, he was required to allege each person’s personal involvement. If he sought release, he had to provide individualized facts supporting that remedy. He also had to identify defendants in the caption and claim, provide available addresses, describe the relevant events and injuries, and state the relief sought. He could use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if he did not know a defendant’s name, but the order stated that doing so would not pause the three-year limitations period.

Disposition

Smith was granted 60 days from February 10, 2021, to submit a second amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. The new complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that, if Smith failed to comply and could not show good cause, it would recommend dismissal for failure to state a claim. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed.