Todman v. The State of New York

Background

Rashaid Todman, detained in Vernon C. Bain Center Dorm 1BB, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that officials failed to protect him from COVID-19. According to the complaint, Department of Correction supervisors did not follow social-distancing procedures; the dorm housed 44 detainees despite having a maximum capacity of 50 beds; the sleeping and day-room areas had no windows; air circulation came from one fan; and the Department took no specific measures to protect detainees’ health. Todman 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, but the court had previously separated their claims. Todman proceeded as the only 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 federal laws requiring review of prisoner complaints against governmental entities. It explained that a claim under § 1983 requires a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against the State of New York because the Eleventh Amendment generally prevents states from being sued in federal court. The court found that New York had not waived that immunity and that Congress had not removed it through § 1983. The court also noted that the claims would fail for another reason because 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 the complaint showed a clear intention to sue the City of New York, the court directed the Clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York as a defendant. That amendment was stated to be without prejudice to defenses the City may assert.

The court explained that a claim against the City requires facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court also explained the requirements for claims against individual correctional officials based on unsafe conditions. Todman needed to allege that the conditions posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that each official acted with the required level of deliberate indifference. The court found that the complaint did not provide enough facts and did not name individual defendants.

Ruling and next steps

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

The amended complaint must identify the individuals involved, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, state the relevant dates and locations, explain the injuries, and identify the requested relief. Todman was also directed to state whether he was a pretrial detainee, identify the housing units involved, and provide facts supporting the alleged constitutional violations. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. No summons would issue at that time. If Todman failed to amend within the allowed period without showing good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.