Cepeda v. Griffin

Background

Ramon Cepeda, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the New York State and New York City correctional authorities failed to protect him from contracting COVID-19. He described inadequate social distancing in Dorm 1BB, limited air circulation, and detainees experiencing coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and other symptoms. He sought money damages.

Cepeda originally filed the complaint with 41 other detainees. The court separated the plaintiffs’ claims into individual cases. The court had already allowed Cepeda to proceed without paying the filing fee at the start of the case.

Screening standard

Because Cepeda was detained and sued governmental entities, the court screened the complaint under federal prisoner-litigation laws. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that although pleadings filed without a lawyer receive a generous reading, they still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims against the State of New York

The court dismissed Cepeda’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York. It held that New York had not given up its constitutional immunity from federal lawsuits and that Congress had not removed that immunity through § 1983. The court added 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, not by a state facility.

Claims against the Department of Correction and addition of the City

The court also dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued. Because the court understood Cepeda to intend claims against New York City, it directed the Clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York as a defendant. The court stated that this replacement did not prevent the City from asserting defenses.

The court explained that suing the City under § 1983 requires more than alleging that an employee acted improperly. Cepeda would need to allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation.

Individual defendants and COVID-19 allegations

The complaint did not name individual defendants and did not include enough facts to state a claim against them. The court explained that the legal standard would depend in part on whether Cepeda was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. In either event, he would need to show that the conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm to his health or safety. He would also need to show the required level of deliberate indifference: for a pretrial detainee, intentional conduct or reckless failure to use reasonable care despite knowledge, or, for a convicted prisoner, knowledge of and disregard for an excessive risk.

The court directed Cepeda to identify whether he was a pretrial detainee, the housing units involved, the specific conditions he challenged, the people responsible, and facts showing that the conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm and that defendants were deliberately indifferent. 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 Cepeda 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 each defendant, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief requested. The court allowed 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 pause the applicable three-year limitations period.

The court dismissed Cepeda’s claims against the State of New York and the Department of Correction, directed that the City of New York be added as a defendant, and granted leave to amend. No summons would issue at that time. If Cepeda failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judge Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.