Squire v. Department of Corrections

Background

Sonny Squire, who was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violating federal rights. He alleged that, while detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, the defendants failed to protect him from contracting COVID-19. He filed the action without a lawyer.

Squire’s case was one of 50 related detainee actions originally filed together. The claims were later separated into individual cases. The original complaint alleged crowded living conditions, including sleeping areas with detainees less than 3–4 inches apart and shared toilets, sinks, and showers. It sought improved conditions, monetary damages, and release for detainees meeting certain criteria. The amended complaint contained fewer details and did not explain how the defendants specifically violated Squire’s constitutional rights.

Department of Corrections

The court dismissed the Department of Corrections from the action for failure to state a claim. The court explained that an agency of New York City generally cannot be sued as a separate entity under the New York City Charter. The opinion also stated that it was unclear whether Squire intended to sue the agency, but dismissed the claims against it in any event.

Claims Against the Individual Defendants

The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations showing both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action under color of state law. For a claim based on unsafe confinement conditions, the alleged conditions must pose an unreasonable risk of serious harm to health or safety. The required mental state differs depending on whether the person was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner.

The court found that Squire’s amended complaint did not contain enough facts to state a claim against the remaining defendants. The court directed him to identify whether he was a pretrial detainee, the housing units where he was assigned, and the specific conditions he challenged. He was also directed to allege facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm, the defendants’ deliberate indifference or other required mental state, and each individual defendant’s personal involvement.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Squire leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days. The new complaint must identify the defendants in both the caption and the factual allegations, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, describe the injuries, and state the requested relief. If Squire does not know a defendant’s name, he may use a John Doe or Jane Doe designation, but the court stated that this does not stop the limitations period from running.

The second amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. It warned that, if Squire failed to comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the amended complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court directed the Clerk to mail the order to Squire and record service on the docket.