Acosta v. The State of New York

Background

Miguel Angel Acosta, also identified as Miguel Acosta Bonilla, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the State of New York and the New York City Department of Correction were violating his federal constitutional rights by failing to protect him from contracting COVID-19. He was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center in Dorm 1BB and sought money damages.

Acosta alleged that the dorm held 44 detainees despite having a maximum capacity of 50 beds, making social distancing impossible. He also alleged that staff did not follow proper social-distancing procedures, that the dorm lacked windows, that one fan circulated dust, and that the Department of Correction had taken no specific measures to protect detainees’ health. He alleged that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID-19 symptoms.

The complaint originally included 41 other Vernon C. Bain Center detainees. The court separated their claims into individual cases. Before this order, the court had allowed Acosta 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 certain complaints filed by prisoners or detainees against governmental entities. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are legally insufficient, frivolous, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers generously, those complaints still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims against the State of New York

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

Claims against the Department of Correction and the City of New York

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency is not generally an entity that can be sued. Because the complaint clearly intended to assert claims involving New York City, the court directed the Clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York as a defendant. The court stated that this replacement was without prejudice to any defenses the City might later assert.

The court explained that a claim against New York City under section 1983 must allege both a municipal policy, custom, or practice and facts showing that the policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation. The original complaint did not provide enough facts to meet that standard.

Potential claims against individual defendants

The court also found that Acosta had not named individual defendants. It explained that the legal standard would depend in part on whether he was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. In either event, he would need to allege that the conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the responsible officials acted with the required level of deliberate indifference. For a pretrial detainee, this would require allegations that an official intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps to reduce a known or reasonably knowable excessive risk. Mere negligence would not be enough.

The court directed Acosta to identify his detention status, housing units, specific conditions, individual defendants, each defendant’s personal involvement, and facts showing a serious risk to his health or safety. If he sought release rather than only money damages, the court also required individualized allegations supporting that remedy.

Disposition

The court dismissed Acosta’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 Acosta leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must include all facts and claims he wanted the court to consider. The court warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.

The court also stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.