Soto v. The State of New York

Background

Hector Soto, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by state actors. He alleged that New York City Department of Correction supervisors did not follow social-distancing procedures, that his dorm housed 44 detainees in a space with a maximum capacity of 50 beds, and that the dorm lacked adequate ventilation. He also alleged that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID-19 symptoms. He sought money damages.

Soto originally filed the complaint with 41 other detainees. The court had already separated their claims, leaving Soto as the sole plaintiff in this action. The court had also allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. It explained that a complaint must contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible and must identify facts showing how each defendant violated the plaintiff’s rights.

The court dismissed the claims against the State of New York because the Eleventh Amendment generally prevents states from being sued in federal court. The court stated that New York had not waived that protection and that Congress had not removed it when it enacted section 1983.

The court also dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency is not generally a separate entity that can be sued. Because the complaint showed an apparent intent 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 change did not prevent the City from asserting defenses.

The court explained that a section 1983 claim against a city requires facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court also explained that a claim against individual correction officials would require facts showing both that the conditions posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the officials acted with the required level of deliberate indifference. The required mental state would differ depending on whether Soto was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner.

The court found that Soto’s complaint did not contain enough facts to state a claim and did not name individual defendants. It directed him to identify his detention status, housing units, specific conditions, facts showing a serious health or safety risk, and facts showing each defendant’s personal involvement.

Disposition

The court dismissed Soto’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 Soto leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and any facts or claims Soto wished to maintain had to be included in it. No summons would issue at that time.

The order stated that the case would be dismissed for failure to state a claim if Soto did not timely comply and could not show good cause. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The court did not reach the merits of whether the alleged COVID-19 conditions violated Soto’s constitutional rights.