Rose v. The State of New York

Background

Darrell Rose, proceeding without a lawyer, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims against state actors for violations of federal rights. Rose alleged that defendants failed to protect him from contracting COVID-19 while he was detained in Dorm 1BB at the Vernon C. Bain Center. He alleged that social distancing was not maintained, the dorm housed 44 detainees despite having a 50-bed capacity, the day room and sleeping area lacked windows, air circulation came from one fan, and the Department of Correction took no specific measures to protect detainees. He also alleged that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID-19 symptoms. Rose sought money damages.

Rose originally filed the complaint with 41 other detainees. The court had already severed the other detainees’ claims, leaving Rose as the sole plaintiff in this action. The court had also granted Rose permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it must screen complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief from governmental entities or their employees. It must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers liberally, the complaint still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Claims against the State of New York. The court dismissed Rose’s section 1983 claims against the State of New York. It held that the State had not waived its protection under the Eleventh Amendment, and Congress had not removed that protection when it enacted section 1983. The court also stated that, even without that protection, the complaint would fail to state a claim against the State because the Vernon C. Bain Center is operated by the New York City Department of Correction rather than a state facility.

Claims against the Department of Correction. The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency is not an entity that can generally be sued separately. Because the complaint appeared intended to assert claims against New York City, the court directed the Clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York in the caption. The court stated that this amendment did not prevent the City from asserting defenses.

Potential claims against the City and individuals. The court explained that a municipality is not liable under section 1983 merely because one of its employees did something wrong. Rose would need to allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation.

The court also explained the requirements for claims against individual correction officials based on unsafe confinement conditions. Rose would need to show that the conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that each official acted with the required level of deliberate indifference. The required mental state would depend on whether Rose was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. The court noted that the complaint did not provide enough facts and did not identify individual defendants.

Disposition

The court dismissed Rose’s claims against the State of New York and the Department of Correction. It directed the Clerk to add the City of New York as a defendant and granted Rose leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to identify the relevant defendants, describe each defendant’s conduct, provide relevant dates and locations, describe injuries, and state the requested relief. Rose also had 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’ involvement in that risk.

The amended complaint had to be filed with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, and it would replace rather than supplement the original complaint. No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that failure to comply, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.