Perry v. The City of New York

Background

Michael Perry, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, filed a self-represented lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the New York City Department of Correction failed to protect him from contracting COVID-19. Perry alleged that his dormitory housed 44 detainees in a space with a maximum capacity of 50 beds, that social distancing was not maintained, that the sleeping and day-room areas lacked windows, and that the only air circulation came from one fan. He also alleged that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID-19 symptoms. He sought money damages.

Perry originally filed the complaint with 41 other detainees. The court had previously separated those detainees’ claims, leaving Perry as the sole plaintiff. The court had also allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, although the opinion noted that prisoners remain responsible for paying the full filing fee over time.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the complaint under the screening requirements for lawsuits filed by prisoners against governmental entities. It concluded that the claims against the State of New York were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states from lawsuits in federal court unless an exception applies. The court also stated that the claims would fail for another reason because the Vernon C. Bain Center was operated by the New York City Department of Correction rather than a state facility.

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency generally cannot be sued as a separate entity. Because the complaint showed that Perry intended to sue the City of New York, the court construed the complaint as asserting claims against the City and directed the clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City in the caption. The court stated that this change did not prevent the City from asserting defenses.

The court explained that a municipality cannot be held liable under Section 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly acted wrongfully. Perry’s amended complaint would need to allege facts showing that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of his constitutional rights.

The court also explained the requirements for claims against individual correction officials. Depending on whether Perry was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner, the claim would arise under the Fourteenth or Eighth Amendment. In either situation, he would need 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 original complaint did not provide enough facts and did not identify individual defendants.

Disposition

The court dismissed Perry’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 Perry leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to identify the relevant defendants, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, describe Perry’s injuries, and state the requested relief. The court warned that failure to comply could lead to dismissal for failure to state a claim. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.