McKenzie v. The State of New York

Background

Dequawn McKenzie, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors who violate constitutional rights. He alleged that conditions in Dorm 1BB exposed detainees to COVID-19. According to the complaint, the dorm housed 44 detainees in a space with a maximum capacity of 50 beds, making social distancing impossible. McKenzie also alleged that Department of Correction supervisors did not follow social-distancing procedures, the dorm had inadequate air circulation, and officials had taken no specific measures to protect detainees’ health. He alleged that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID-19 symptoms. He sought money damages.

McKenzie’s original complaint included 41 other detainees. The court had previously separated those detainees’ claims, leaving McKenzie as the only plaintiff in this case. The court had also allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to review prisoner lawsuits against governmental entities and 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.

The court dismissed the claims against the State of New York because the Eleventh Amendment generally prevents states from being sued in federal court. The court stated that New York had not waived that protection and that Congress had not removed it through section 1983. The court also noted that the complaint would fail to state a claim against the State for an additional reason: the Vernon C. Bain Center is operated by the New York City Department of Correction rather than the State.

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued. Because the complaint appeared intended to assert claims against New York City, the court directed the Clerk of Court to add the City of New York as a defendant and replace the Department of Correction in the caption. The court stated that this amendment did not prevent the City from raising defenses.

The court explained that a municipality cannot be held liable under section 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly acted wrongfully. McKenzie’s amended complaint would need to allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation.

The court also explained the requirements for claims against individual correction officials. If McKenzie was a pretrial detainee, his claim would arise under the Fourteenth Amendment; if he was a convicted prisoner, it would arise under the Eighth Amendment. In either event, he would need to allege that the conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that each official had the required mental state. For a convicted prisoner, that generally requires showing that the official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk. For a pretrial detainee, it requires showing that the official intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to act reasonably despite knowing, or having reason to know, of an excessive health or safety risk. Mere negligence would not be enough.

Disposition

The court dismissed McKenzie’s claims against the State of New York and the Department of Correction. It added the City of New York as a defendant and granted McKenzie leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to identify the individuals allegedly involved, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. Any claims or facts McKenzie wanted the court to consider had to be included in the amended complaint because it would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. If McKenzie failed to file the amended complaint within the deadline and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide whether the alleged COVID-19 conditions actually violated McKenzie’s constitutional rights.