Cuevas v. The State of New York

Background

Jeremy Cuevas, proceeding without a lawyer, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by government actors. He alleged that the State of New York and the Department of Correction failed to protect him from contracting COVID-19 while he was detained in Dorm 1BB at the Vernon C. Bain Center.

Cuevas alleged that the dorm held 44 detainees despite having a maximum capacity of 50 beds, making social distancing impossible. He also alleged that Department of Correction supervisors did not follow proper social-distancing procedures, the sleeping and day-room areas had no windows, only one fan provided air circulation, and no specific health-protection measures were taken. He stated that detainees experienced daily coughing, sore throat, headaches, dizziness, and COVID-19 symptoms. He sought money damages.

The complaint originally included 41 other detainees. The court had previously severed those individuals’ claims, leaving Cuevas as the sole plaintiff in this action. The court had also allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under federal statutes requiring review of prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities. It explained that such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers generously, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make the claim plausible.

The court dismissed Cuevas’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York because New York had not waived its constitutional immunity from suit in federal court, and Congress had not removed that immunity through § 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 a state facility.

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency is not generally a suable entity. Because Cuevas appeared to intend to sue New York City, the court ordered the clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York as a defendant. The court stated that this change did not prevent the city from asserting defenses.

The court explained that municipal liability under § 1983 requires facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation; allegations that an employee acted improperly are not enough by themselves. For claims against individual officials, Cuevas would need to allege that the challenged conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that each official had the required mental state. The standard would depend on whether Cuevas was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. The court also required facts showing each individual defendant’s personal involvement.

Disposition

The court dismisses Cuevas’s claims against the State of New York and the Department of Correction. It directs the clerk to add the City of New York as a defendant and grants Cuevas leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days.

The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. It must identify the relevant defendants, describe the events and each defendant’s conduct, state the injuries and requested relief, and include facts supporting the constitutional claims. Cuevas may use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for unknown individual defendants, but doing so does not pause the three-year limitations period. No summons would issue at that time. If Cuevas did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the court stated that 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 appeal without prepaying fees.