Francis v. The State of New York

Background

Derrick Francis, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, brought this civil-rights lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He originally filed the complaint with 41 other detainees, but the court had previously separated their claims, leaving Francis as the only plaintiff in this case.

Francis alleged that he was housed in Dorm 1BB, which had 44 detainees in a space with a maximum capacity of 50 beds. He alleged that social distancing was not maintained, the sleeping and day-room areas had no windows, air circulation came from one fan, and the Department of Correction had taken no specific measures to protect detainees from COVID-19. He also alleged that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID-19 symptoms. He sought money damages.

Screening standard

Because Francis was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that 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, those complaints still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible and must comply with the requirement of a short and plain statement of the facts supporting relief.

Claims against the named defendants

The court dismissed Francis’s claims against the State of New York. It held that New York had not waived its protection under the Eleventh Amendment from suit in federal court, and that 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 being a state facility.

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency is not an entity that can be sued separately. Because the complaint showed an apparent intent to sue the City of New York, the court construed the claims as being against the City and directed the Clerk of Court to replace the Department of Correction with the City in the case caption. The court stated that this caption change was without prejudice to any defenses the City might assert.

Requirements for an amended complaint

The court explained that a claim against the City under section 1983 requires facts showing both a municipal policy, custom, or practice and that the policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The complaint did not contain enough facts to state such a claim and did not identify individual defendants.

The court directed Francis to provide more information in an amended complaint, including whether he was a pretrial detainee, the housing units in which he was held, the specific conditions he challenged, facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm, and facts showing that defendants were deliberately indifferent to that risk. If he named individual defendants, he had to describe each person’s personal involvement. The court also required information about relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. Any amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Francis’s claims against the State of New York and the Department of Correction. The court added the City of New York as a defendant and granted Francis leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the deadline, 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 proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.