Powell v. The State of New York

Background

Deshaun Powell filed this civil-rights case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He was detained in the Vernon C. Bain Center and alleged that the New York State Department of Correction failed to protect him from contracting COVID-19. The complaint named the State of New York and the “Department of Correction,” which the court understood to mean the New York City Department of Correction.

Powell alleged that he was housed in Dorm 1BB, which had a maximum capacity of 50 beds and housed 44 detainees. He alleged that staff did not follow proper social-distancing procedures, that the dorm lacked windows, that one fan circulated dust, and that the Department had taken no specific measures to protect detainees’ health. He also alleged that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID symptoms. He sought money damages.

The complaint originally was filed with complaints from 41 other detainees at the facility. The court previously separated those claims into separate cases. The court had also allowed Powell to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, although it noted that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee.

Screening standard

Because Powell was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally adequate claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make liability plausible under the federal pleading rules.

Claims against the State of New York

The court dismissed Powell’s claims against the State of New York. It explained that the Eleventh Amendment generally prevents states from being sued in federal court unless the state waives that immunity or Congress removes it. The court found that New York had not waived its 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 New York because the Vernon C. Bain Center is operated by the New York City Department of Correction rather than a state facility.

Claims against the Department of Correction and the City

The court also dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency is not a separate entity that can generally be sued. Because Powell appeared to intend to sue the City of New York, the court directed the clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City in the case caption. The court stated that this caption change did not prevent the City from raising defenses.

To pursue a Section 1983 claim against the City, Powell would have to allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation. It would not be enough to allege only that a City employee acted improperly.

Claims against individual officials

The complaint did not name individual defendants and did not contain enough facts to state a claim against them. The court explained that the legal standard would depend partly on whether Powell was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. In either event, he would have to allege that the conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the responsible official acted with the required level of awareness or disregard of that risk. The court noted that mere negligence would not establish a federal constitutional violation under Section 1983.

The court directed Powell to state whether he was a pretrial detainee, identify the housing units involved, describe the specific conditions, explain how those conditions created a serious risk, and identify each individual’s personal involvement. If he sought release rather than only money damages, he also had to provide individualized facts supporting that remedy.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Powell leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include all facts and claims he wanted the court to consider. It had to identify the defendants, relevant events, approximate dates and locations, injuries, and requested relief. The court permitted unidentified defendants to be named as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe,” but explained that doing so would not stop the three-year limitations period from running.

The court dismissed Powell’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 and granted leave to amend. No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that failure to file a proper amended complaint within the deadline, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.