Feliz v. Westchester Department of Corrections

Background

Hiram Alberto Feliz, who was incarcerated at the Westchester County Jail and was proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that he tripped on a crack in a basketball court and that he was denied timely and adequate medical care for the resulting hand injury. The opinion addresses the conditions-of-confinement claim arising from the cracked basketball court against C.O. Fumes and C.O. Clark. The court had previously allowed Feliz to proceed without paying the filing fee and had twice allowed him to amend his complaint.

Screening standard

Because Feliz was a pretrial detainee during the events at issue, the court analyzed his conditions-of-confinement claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A claim of this kind requires facts showing both that the condition posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the defendant intentionally imposed it or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing, or having reason to know, of the excessive risk.

The court also applied the screening requirements for prisoner complaints filed by people allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. It was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers liberally, those filings still must provide enough facts to make liability plausible.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Feliz’s allegations about the cracked basketball court suggested a garden-variety negligence claim under state law, not a violation of the Constitution. The opinion relied on cases stating that an allegation that a prisoner fell because of a slippery or defective surface, without more, generally does not establish the required serious condition or deliberate indifference. The court therefore held that Feliz had not pleaded facts showing that Fumes or Clark violated his constitutional rights.

Disposition

The court dismissed without prejudice the § 1983 claim against C.O. Fumes and C.O. Clark arising from the cracked basketball court for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court granted Feliz leave to assert a state-law negligence claim, a § 1983 claim, or both in a third amended complaint. The court stated that it would later decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claim.

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete the required service forms, and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on C.O. Fumes, C.O. Clark, Dr. Ulloa, and Dr. Magill. It extended the service period until 90 days after the summonses were issued. The court also directed Feliz to notify the court of any address change and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.