Yarbough v. The State of New York

Background

Joseph Yarbough, detained in Dorm 1BB at the Vernon C. Bain Center, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that Department of Correction supervisors did not follow social-distancing procedures, that 44 detainees were housed in a dorm with a maximum capacity of 50 beds, and that the dorm lacked windows and had only one fan for air circulation. He also alleged that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID-19 symptoms. He sought money damages.

Yarbough originally filed the complaint with 41 other Vernon C. Bain Center detainees. The court had already separated the other plaintiffs’ claims, leaving Yarbough as the sole plaintiff in this action. The court had also granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, while explaining that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee under the applicable statute.

Screening standard

Because Yarbough was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make a legally plausible claim.

Claims against New York and the Department of Correction

The court dismissed the section 1983 claims against the State of New York. It held that New York had not waived its protection under the Eleventh Amendment from this type of federal lawsuit, and that Congress had not removed that protection when it enacted section 1983. The court also stated that the claims would fail for another reason because the Vernon C. Bain Center is operated by the New York City Department of Correction, not by a state facility.

The court also dismissed the claims against the “Department of Correction,” which it understood to mean the New York City Department of Correction. The court explained that a New York City agency generally is not a separate suable entity. Because the complaint appeared intended to assert claims against New York City, the court construed it that way and directed the clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York as a defendant. That change did not prevent New York City from raising defenses.

Insufficient allegations against the City or individual officials

The court explained that a municipality cannot be held liable under section 1983 merely because one of its employees or agents allegedly did something wrong. A plaintiff must allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused the constitutional violation. The court found that the complaint did not provide enough facts to meet that requirement.

The complaint also did not name individual defendants. The court explained that the required showing would depend on whether Yarbough was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. In either situation, he needed to allege that the conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the responsible officials acted with the required level of disregard for that risk. The court stated that negligence alone would not establish a federal constitutional violation. It directed Yarbough to state whether he was a pretrial detainee, identify the housing units and specific conditions involved, describe facts showing a serious risk, and identify each individual’s personal involvement.

Disposition and leave to amend

The court dismissed Yarbough’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 Yarbough leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to completely replace the original complaint, include all claims and facts he wanted the court to consider, identify defendants in the caption and body, and describe the relevant events, injuries, and requested relief.

Yarbough had 60 days from May 18, 2021, to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. The court permitted him to use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for unidentified individual defendants, but warned that doing so would not pause the three-year limitations period. No summons would issue at that time. If Yarbough failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, 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 an appeal.