Amaro v. The State of New York

Background

Luis Amaro brought this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for constitutional violations by state actors. He alleged that officials at the Vernon C. Bain Center failed to protect him from contracting COVID-19. He said that his dorm housed 44 detainees in a space with a 50-bed capacity, making social distancing impossible; that the sleeping and day-room areas lacked windows; that one fan circulated dust; and that the Department of Correction had taken no specific measures to protect detainees. He also alleged that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID symptoms. He sought money damages.

Amaro originally filed the complaint with 41 other detainees. The court had already separated the other detainees’ claims, leaving Amaro as the sole plaintiff. 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 screening of prisoner complaints against governmental entities. The court explained that a complaint must contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible, while also giving special consideration to filings by people without lawyers.

The court dismissed Amaro’s claims against the State of New York. It held that the Eleventh Amendment generally prevents states from being sued in federal court, that New York had not waived that protection, and that Congress had not removed it for claims under § 1983. The court also stated that, even without that protection, the complaint would not state a claim against the State because the facility was operated by the New York City Department of Correction rather than by 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 showed an apparent intention to sue the City of New York, the court directed the clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City as a defendant. The court stated that this change did not prevent the City from raising defenses.

The court explained that a municipality can be liable under § 1983 only when the municipality itself caused the alleged constitutional violation. An amended complaint therefore had to allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice and facts showing that it caused the violation.

The court also explained the requirements for claims against individual correctional officials. Depending on whether Amaro was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner, the claim would arise under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment. In either event, he had to allege that the conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the official acted with the required level of deliberate indifference. The court found that the complaint lacked sufficient facts and did not identify individual defendants.

Disposition and amendment instructions

The court dismissed Amaro’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 Amaro leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days.

The court directed Amaro to state whether he was a pretrial detainee, identify his housing units, describe the specific conditions he challenged, explain how those conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm, and allege 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 the amended complaint to identify the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it.

The court stated that no summons would issue at that time and that the case would be dismissed for failure to state a claim if Amaro did not timely comply without showing good cause. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.