Latta v. The State of New York

Background

Rydell Latta, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the New York City Department of Correction failed to protect detainees from COVID-19. According to the complaint, Dorm 1BB had 44 detainees despite a maximum capacity of 50, social distancing was not maintained, the sleeping and day-room areas lacked windows, air circulation came from one fan, and the Department took no specific measures to protect detainees’ health. Latta also alleged that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID-19 symptoms. He sought money damages.

The complaint originally included Latta and 41 other detainees. The court had previously separated their claims into individual actions. The court had also allowed Latta to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under the federal laws requiring review of prisoner complaints. It explained that a complaint must contain enough factual information to make a legal claim plausible, although courts must read complaints filed without a lawyer generously.

The court dismissed Latta’s claims against the State of New York because the state had not given up its immunity from federal lawsuits and Congress had not removed that immunity 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 a state facility.

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency is generally not a separate entity that can be sued. Because the court understood Latta to intend claims against the City of New York, it 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 must allege that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation; alleging wrongdoing by an employee alone is not enough. The court also described the requirements for claims against individual correction officials based on allegedly unsafe confinement conditions. Depending on whether Latta was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner, the claim would arise under the Fourteenth or Eighth Amendment. In either event, he had to allege that the conditions posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the officials acted with the required level of disregard for that risk.

The court concluded that the complaint did not provide enough facts and did not identify individual defendants. It directed Latta to state whether he was a pretrial detainee, identify his housing units and the specific conditions he challenged, describe facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm, and explain the personal involvement of any individuals he named.

Disposition and amendment instructions

The court dismissed Latta’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 Latta leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include the facts and claims Latta wanted the court to consider.

The court instructed Latta to identify the defendants, relevant events, approximate dates and locations, injuries, and requested relief. He could use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for unknown individual defendants, but the court warned that doing so would not pause the three-year limitations period. No summons would issue at that time. If Latta did not timely amend 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 appeal without prepaying fees.

The order was procedural: the court screened the pleading and required amendment without deciding whether the alleged COVID-19 conditions ultimately violated Latta’s constitutional rights.