Seenarine v. The State of New York

Background

Anand K. Seenarine, who was incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility when the order was issued, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the State of New York and the Department of Correction failed to protect him from contracting COVID-19 while he was housed in Dorm 1BB at the Vernon C. Bain Center. He alleged that the dorm housed 44 detainees in a space with a maximum capacity of 50 beds, making social distancing impossible; that the area lacked windows and had only one fan for air circulation; and that the Department of Correction took no specific protective measures. He also alleged that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID symptoms. He sought money damages.

Seenarine originally filed the complaint with 41 other Vernon C. Bain Center detainees. The court had previously separated their claims into individual actions. The court had also granted Seenarine permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, while noting that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee under the applicable statute.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires review of prisoner complaints against governmental entities or their employees. The court explained that a claim under Section 1983 requires a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the State of New York because the Eleventh Amendment generally protects states from suit in federal court. The court found that New York had not waived that immunity and that Congress had not removed it through Section 1983. The court also stated 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 being a state facility.

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency generally is not an entity that can be sued. Because the complaint appeared intended to assert claims against New York City, the court construed it that way and directed the Clerk of Court to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York in the caption. That change was made without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert.

The court explained that municipal liability under Section 1983 requires facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation; allegations that an employee acted improperly are not enough by themselves. The court also explained the requirements for a possible claim concerning unsafe detention conditions. Depending on whether Seenarine was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner, the claim would arise under the Fourteenth or Eighth Amendment. In either event, he needed to allege conditions posing an unreasonable risk of serious harm and facts showing the required level of deliberate indifference. The court found that the complaint did not provide enough facts and did not identify individual defendants.

Disposition

The court dismissed Seenarine’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 Seenarine leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to identify the relevant defendants, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide facts about the housing units and conditions, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. The court directed that the amended complaint replace the original complaint rather than supplement it.

The court stated that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. No summons would issue at that time.