Funes Rivas v. The State of New York

Background

Denis Giovany Funes Rivas, who was detained in the Vernon C. Bain Center, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that conditions in Dorm 1BB exposed detainees to an unreasonable risk of contracting COVID-19. He stated that the dorm had a maximum capacity of 50 beds and housed 44 detainees, making social distancing impossible; that the sleeping and day-room areas had no windows; that air circulation came from one fan; and that the Department of Correction had taken 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 named the State of New York and the “Department of Correction.” The court understood the latter to mean the New York City Department of Correction. The action had originally been filed with claims by 41 other Vernon C. Bain Center detainees, but the court had separated the plaintiffs’ claims into separate cases. The court had also granted Funes Rivas permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

Screening and legal standards

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That law requires dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints generously, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make relief plausible.

To state a claim under § 1983, Funes Rivas had to allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action by a person acting under state law. For claims about unsafe detention conditions, the court explained that he would need to allege facts showing that the conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that officials acted with the required level of deliberate indifference. The required mental state differs depending on whether he was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. The complaint did not say which status applied and did not name individual defendants.

Claims against the State of New York

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against the State of New York. It held that New York had not waived its constitutional immunity from suits in federal court and that Congress had not removed that immunity through § 1983. The court added that, even without that immunity, the complaint would not state a claim against the 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

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency is not a suable entity. Because the complaint showed an intent to assert claims against New York City, the court directed the Clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York in the caption under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert.

The court explained that alleging wrongdoing by a municipal employee is not enough to establish municipal liability under § 1983. To proceed against the City, an amended complaint would have to allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation.

Claims involving individual defendants

The court explained that the constitutional basis of the conditions claim would depend on whether Funes Rivas was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. In either event, he would need to allege that the conditions were sufficiently serious and that the responsible officials acted with the required deliberate indifference. For a pretrial detainee, that could involve intentionally imposing the condition or recklessly failing to take reasonable steps to reduce a known or reasonably knowable excessive risk. For a convicted prisoner, he would need to allege that an official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to health or safety. Mere negligence would not be enough.

The court directed Funes Rivas to provide more facts about his detention status, housing assignments, the specific conditions he challenged, the risk of serious harm, and the defendants’ conduct. If he named individual defendants, he also had to describe each person’s personal involvement. If he sought release, he had to provide individualized facts supporting that remedy.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court dismissed Funes Rivas’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 Funes Rivas leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to completely replace the original complaint and include all facts and claims he wanted the court to consider. The court instructed him to identify the defendants, relevant events, dates and locations, injuries, and requested relief. It permitted him to use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for unknown individuals but warned that doing so would not pause the three-year limitations period.

No summons would issue at that time. If Funes Rivas failed to file a compliant amended complaint within the deadline and could not show good cause, the court stated that 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 appeal without paying fees.