King v. The State of New York

Background

Sharod King, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. He alleged that officials at the Vernon C. Bain Center failed to protect him from contracting COVID-19. He identified his housing location as Dorm 1BB, which had a maximum capacity of 50 beds and housed 44 detainees. He alleged that social distancing was not maintained, the dorm lacked windows, one fan circulated dust, and 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-19 symptoms. He sought money damages.

The complaint originally included 41 other detainees, but the court had previously severed their claims. Sharod King proceeded as the sole plaintiff. The court had also granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, although prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee under the applicable statute.

Legal standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen the complaint. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers generously, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a claim plausible and satisfy the requirement for a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

Claims against the State of New York

The court dismissed Sharod King’s Section 1983 claims against the State of New York. It held that New York had not waived its protection under the Eleventh Amendment, and Congress had not removed that protection when it enacted Section 1983. The court also stated that, even without that protection, 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.

Claims against the Department of Correction and addition of 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. Because the complaint showed a clear intention to assert claims against the City of New York, the court directed the Clerk of Court to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York in the caption. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to defenses the City might assert.

Requirements for an amended complaint

The court explained that a Section 1983 claim against the City requires facts showing both a municipal policy, custom, or practice and that the policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation. The complaint did not provide sufficient facts and did not identify individual defendants. The court therefore directed Sharod King to state whether he was a pretrial detainee, identify his housing units during the relevant period, describe the specific conditions he challenged, and provide facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm and deliberate indifference to that risk. If he named individual defendants, he had to allege each person’s personal involvement.

The court granted Sharod King leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to include all facts and claims he wished to pursue because it would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court permitted him to use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if he did not yet know an individual defendant’s name, but warned that doing so would not stop the three-year limitations period from running. If he failed to amend on time without showing good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed Sharod King’s claims against the State of New York and the Department of Correction, directed the Clerk to add the City of New York as a defendant, and granted leave to amend. No summons issued at that time. 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. Judge Laura Taylor Swain did not decide whether the alleged COVID-19 conditions ultimately violated Sharod King’s constitutional rights.