Miller v. The State of New York

Background

Brian Miller, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violations of federal rights. Miller was detained in the Vernon C. Bain Center and alleged that conditions in Dorm 1BB exposed detainees to an unreasonable risk of contracting COVID-19. He alleged that the dorm had a maximum capacity of 50 beds and housed 44 detainees, making social distancing impossible; that supervisors did not follow proper distancing procedures; that the day room and sleeping area lacked windows; that one fan provided the only air circulation; and that the Department of Correction took no specific measures to protect detainees. He also alleged that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID-19 symptoms. He sought money damages.

The complaint originally included 41 other detainees. The court had previously severed their claims, leaving Miller as the sole plaintiff in this case. The court had also allowed Miller to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Miller was a detainee seeking relief against governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under federal prisoner-litigation screening statutes. 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 subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that although filings by people without lawyers are read generously, they still must provide enough facts to make a claim legally plausible.

Claims Against the State of New York

The court dismissed Miller’s claims against the State of New York. It held that the state had not waived its protection under the Eleventh Amendment, and that Congress had not removed that protection when it enacted § 1983. The court also noted that even without that protection, the complaint would fail to state a claim against New York because the Vernon C. Bain Center is operated by the New York City Department of Correction rather than a state facility.

Claims Against the Department of Correction and the City of New York

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency is generally not a separately suable entity. Because the court understood Miller to intend claims against the City of New York, it directed the Clerk of Court to replace the Department of Correction with the City as a defendant. 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 § 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly acted wrongfully. Miller’s amended complaint would need to allege facts showing both a municipal policy, custom, or practice and that the policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his constitutional rights.

Possible Claims Against Individual Defendants

The court explained that the legal standard would depend in part on whether Miller was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. In either event, he would need to allege that the conditions posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm to his health or safety. He would also need to allege the required mental state: for a convicted prisoner, that an official knew of and disregarded the serious risk; for a pretrial detainee, that an official intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to act with reasonable care despite knowing, or reasonably being expected to know, of the excessive risk. Mere negligence would not be enough.

The court directed Miller to identify his detention status, housing units, specific conditions, individual defendants, and facts showing each individual’s personal involvement. It also stated that any request for release would require individualized allegations supporting that remedy.

Disposition

The court dismissed Miller’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 Miller leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and would need to include all facts and claims Miller wanted the court to consider. The court warned that failure to amend on time, without showing good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The opinion does not expressly describe the dismissal as with or without prejudice.