Person v. The State of New York

Background

Wilford Person, detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the State of New York and the New York City Department of Correction failed to protect him from contracting COVID-19. He alleged that his dormitory held 44 detainees in a space with a maximum capacity of 50 beds, making social distancing impossible; that the day room and sleeping area had no windows; that one fan circulated dust; and that the Department of Correction had taken no specific measures to protect detainees’ health. He also alleged that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID-related symptoms. He sought money damages.

Person originally filed the complaint with 41 other Vernon C. Bain Center detainees. The court had previously separated those detainees’ claims, leaving Person as the sole plaintiff. The court had also allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

Screening standard

Because Person was a detained prisoner proceeding without paying the filing fee upfront and sued governmental defendants, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or otherwise fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a legal claim plausible.

Claims against the State of New York

The court dismissed Person’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York. It held that New York had not waived its protection under the Eleventh Amendment from suits in federal court, and that Congress had not removed that protection when it enacted § 1983. The court also noted that, even without that protection, the complaint would not 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

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency is not an entity that can generally be sued separately. Because Person appeared to intend to sue the City of New York, the court directed the Clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City as a defendant. The court stated that this caption change was without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert.

To state a § 1983 claim against the City, Person would have to allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of his constitutional rights. The court did not decide that issue on the existing allegations.

Potential claims against individual defendants

The court explained that the legal standard would depend partly on whether Person was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. In either event, he would need to allege that the challenged conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the relevant officials acted with the required form of deliberate indifference. For a pretrial detainee, that would require allegations that an official intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to use reasonable care despite knowing, or having reason to know, of an excessive risk. For a convicted prisoner, the official would generally have to know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court found that the complaint did not contain enough facts and did not identify individual defendants. It directed Person to state whether he was a pretrial detainee, identify the housing units and specific conditions involved, describe facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm, and identify each individual’s personal involvement. If he sought release, he also had to provide individualized allegations supporting that remedy.

Disposition and amendment instructions

The court dismissed Person’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. The court granted Person leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so any facts or claims he wanted to pursue had to be included again.

The court instructed Person to name the individuals allegedly involved, or use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if he did not yet know their names. It required the amended complaint to provide the relevant defendants’ names and titles, the events and approximate dates and locations, the injuries, and the relief sought. The court warned that if Person did not timely amend 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 appeal without paying fees. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain on May 18, 2021.