Roldan v. The State of New York

Background

Jason Roldan brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims for violations of federal rights by state actors. He alleged that the State of New York and the “Department of Correction,” which the court understood to mean the New York City Department of Correction, failed to protect him from contracting COVID-19.

Roldan alleged that he was housed in Dorm 1BB at the Vernon C. Bain Center, which had 44 detainees in a space with a maximum capacity of 50 beds. He said that staff did not follow proper social-distancing procedures, that detainees had to remind staff about social-distancing guidelines, and that the sleeping and day-room areas lacked windows. He also alleged that one fan provided the only air circulation and that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID symptoms. He sought money damages.

Roldan originally filed the complaint with 41 other detainees. The court had already separated the other detainees’ claims, leaving Roldan as the sole plaintiff in this action. The court had also granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.

Screening standard

Because Roldan was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that although it must read filings by people without lawyers generously, those filings still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims against New York State

The court dismissed Roldan’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York. It explained that states generally cannot be sued in federal court unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity or Congress has removed that immunity. The court found that New York had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it through § 1983. The court also stated that, even without that immunity, the complaint would not state a claim against New York State 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 also 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 appeared to intend to assert claims against New York City, the court directed the Clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York as a defendant. The court stated that this replacement did not prevent the City from raising any defenses.

The court explained that suing a municipality under § 1983 requires more than alleging wrongdoing by municipal employees. Roldan would need to allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation.

Possible claims against individual officials

The court explained that the legal standard could differ depending on whether Roldan was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. In either event, he would need to allege that the conditions were sufficiently serious to create an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the responsible official acted with the required level of disregard for that risk. For a pretrial detainee, the required showing would involve intentional action or reckless failure to use reasonable care despite knowing, or being expected to know, of an excessive health or safety risk. For a convicted prisoner, the official generally must have known about and disregarded an excessive risk.

The court found that the complaint did not contain enough facts and did not identify individual defendants. It directed Roldan to provide information about his detention status, housing units, specific conditions, the risk those conditions created, the officials’ involvement, and any injuries. If he sought release rather than only money damages, he also had to provide individualized facts supporting that remedy.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Roldan leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to identify the individuals allegedly involved, though Roldan could temporarily use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if he did not know a person’s name. The court explained that using those placeholder names would not stop the statute of limitations from running. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint, so any claims and facts Roldan wanted to preserve had to be included in it.

The court’s conclusion dismissed Roldan’s claims against the State of New York and the Department of Correction, directed the Clerk to add the City of New York as a defendant, and granted leave to amend. No summons issued at that time. The court warned that if Roldan did not file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed period and could not show good cause, 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 proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.