McDaniel v. The City of New York

Background

Curtis McDaniel, who was incarcerated at Bare Hill Correctional Facility, proceeded without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. He brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. The defendants were the City of New York, a superintendent identified as John Doe, the head of a medical unit identified as John Doe, and an orthopedic provider identified as John Doe.

The court had previously directed McDaniel to amend his original complaint. He filed an amended complaint on January 8, 2021. The court reviewed that pleading under the federal laws requiring screening of prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or their employees.

Claims Against the City

A municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly acted wrongfully. The plaintiff must allege that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court found that McDaniel did not allege facts suggesting that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his rights. It therefore dismissed his § 1983 claims against the City under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Mattress and Medical-Care Claims

McDaniel alleged that he suffered neck, shoulder, and back injuries in an attack by another inmate. He said he complained about pain, sleep deprivation, and the mattress; requested a double mattress; and was not given needed therapy, adequate medication, or proper counseling. He alleged that a thin, worn, nonstandard mattress caused or worsened back injuries.

The court held that these allegations did not state a conditions-of-confinement claim. McDaniel did not allege facts showing that the injuries from the inmate attack left him with a medical condition requiring a nonstandard mattress. The court also found that he did not allege that the superintendent, medical-unit head, or orthopedic provider intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing, or having reason to know, that the mattress posed an excessive health or safety risk.

The court separately considered the allegations that medical personnel failed to provide adequate treatment. To state a Fourteenth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a pretrial detainee must allege a serious medical need and intentional or reckless failure to mitigate an excessive risk. The court found that McDaniel’s allegations suggested a disagreement about treatment, including medication, rather than deliberate indifference. It therefore dismissed the mattress-related claims for failure to state a claim.

Asbestos Claims

McDaniel alleged that he was taken to an asbestos-abatement area in the Anna M. Kross Center intake area, spent two days there upon arrival, and passed through the area 35 additional times for several hours while awaiting transportation. He alleged that officials knew about the risk and that the head of medical failed to conduct proper testing after he experienced breathing symptoms. He also alleged that he used asthma pumps for many months.

The court held that the allegations were insufficient to state a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim. It explained that exposure to airborne asbestos must involve both significant intensity and significant duration to create a substantial risk of serious harm. McDaniel did not allege that he saw exposed asbestos or asbestos particles, that he was in the intake area during the abatement, or that he was otherwise exposed to asbestos there. The attached notice stated that interior foam was being removed from February 15 through February 24, 2019, while the attached movement records showed his passage through the facility between March 2019 and January 2020. The court said those records cast doubt on whether he was present during the abatement. It dismissed the asbestos-related claims for failure to state a claim.

State-Law Claims and Further Amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims, over any state-law claims McDaniel might be asserting.

The court also declined to give McDaniel another opportunity to amend. It stated that he had already been given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies and that the defects in the amended complaint could not be cured through further amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed McDaniel’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and denied further leave to amend. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.