Eng v. The State of New York

Background

Jared Eng filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors who violate federal constitutional rights. Eng was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center and alleged that the New York City Department of Correction failed to protect detainees from contracting COVID-19.

Eng alleged that he was housed in Dorm 1BB, which had a maximum capacity of 50 beds and housed 44 detainees. He alleged that social distancing was not properly maintained, the day room and sleeping area 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 named the State of New York and the “Department of Correction” as defendants. The court understood the latter name to refer to the New York City Department of Correction. The action had originally been filed with claims by 41 other Vernon C. Bain Center detainees, but the court had separated the plaintiffs’ claims into individual actions.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under federal laws requiring review of prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or officials. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. It also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims against the State of New York. The court dismissed Eng’s section 1983 claims against the State. It held that the Eleventh Amendment generally prevents states from being sued in federal court unless the state has waived that protection or Congress has removed it. The court stated that New York had not waived its protection and that Congress had not removed it when it enacted section 1983. The court added that, even without this 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. The court also dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency is not generally an entity that can be sued. Because Eng clearly intended to assert claims involving the City of New York, the court directed the Clerk of Court to replace the Department of Correction with the City in the case caption. The court stated that this change was without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert.

Potential municipal and individual claims. The court explained that suing a municipality under section 1983 requires more than alleging that one of its employees did something wrong. Eng would need to allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation.

The court also explained the requirements for claims against individual correction officials. Depending on whether Eng was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner, the claim would arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process protection or the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment. In either event, Eng would need to allege that the conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the relevant official had the required level of disregard for that risk. The court stated that negligence alone would not establish a constitutional violation.

The court found that the complaint lacked enough facts and did not name individual defendants. It directed Eng’s amended complaint to state whether he was a pretrial detainee, identify the housing units involved, describe the specific conditions, explain facts showing a serious health or safety risk, and identify each individual’s personal involvement. If Eng sought release as a remedy, he also had to provide individualized allegations supporting that request.

Disposition

The court dismissed Eng’s claims against the State of New York and the Department of Correction. It directed the Clerk of Court to add the City of New York as a defendant. The court granted Eng leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order.

The amended complaint must be labeled “Amended Complaint,” use docket number 21-CV-4236 (LTS), and include all facts and claims Eng wants the court to consider because it will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that if Eng failed to comply within the allowed time 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.