Campbell v. The State of New York

Background

Troy Campbell, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the New York City Department of Correction was failing to protect him from contracting COVID-19, violating his federal constitutional rights. He sued the State of New York and the “Department of Correction,” which the court understood to mean the New York City Department of Correction. He sought money damages.

Campbell alleged that his dormitory had a maximum capacity of 50 beds and housed 44 detainees, making social distancing impossible. He also alleged that Department of Correction supervisors did not follow social-distancing procedures, the dormitory lacked windows, air circulation came from one fan that blew dust around the dorm, and the Department had taken no specific measures to protect detainees’ health. The complaint stated that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID-19 symptoms.

Screening standard

Because Campbell was detained and proceeding without paying the filing fee in advance, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 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 jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible and must satisfy the requirement for a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

Claims against the State of New York

The court dismissed Campbell’s section 1983 claims against the State of New York. It held that the State had not given up its protection from suit in federal court and that Congress had not removed that protection through section 1983. The court also noted that, even without that protection, the complaint would fail to state a claim against the State because the Vernon C. Bain Center is operated by the New York City Department of Correction rather than being 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. In light of Campbell’s self-represented status and apparent intent to sue the City of New York, the court ordered the clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York as a defendant. The court stated that this amendment did not limit any defenses the City might later assert.

To state a section 1983 claim against the City, Campbell would need to allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of his constitutional rights. The court explained that the City could not be held liable merely because one of its employees or agents allegedly did something wrong.

Potential claims against individual officials

The court explained that the legal standard would depend partly on whether Campbell was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. In either situation, he would need to show that the conditions were sufficiently serious and that the responsible official acted with the required level of disregard for the risk to his health or safety. For a convicted prisoner, the official must have known about and disregarded an excessive risk. For a pretrial detainee, the official must have intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to act with reasonable care despite knowing, or having reason to know, that the condition posed an excessive risk.

The court found that the complaint did not provide enough facts and did not identify individual defendants. It directed Campbell to state whether he was a pretrial detainee, identify his housing units during the relevant period, describe the specific conditions he challenged, explain facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm, and describe each individual defendant’s personal involvement.

Disposition and leave to amend

The court dismissed Campbell’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 Campbell permission to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to be labeled “Amended Complaint,” use docket number 21-CV-4202 (LTS), include all facts and claims Campbell wanted the court to consider, and identify the defendants, relevant events, injuries, and requested relief. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

The court stated that Campbell could use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for unknown individual defendants, but that doing so would not stop the three-year limitations period from running. No summons would issue at that time. If Campbell failed to amend 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.