Buchanan v. The State of New York

Background

Calvin Devon Buchanan, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He was detained in the Vernon C. Bain Center and alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights by failing to protect him from contracting COVID-19. He identified the defendants as the State of New York and the “Department of Correction,” which the court understood to mean the New York City Department of Correction. Buchanan originally filed the complaint with 41 other detainees; the court had previously separated their claims into individual cases.

Buchanan alleged that his dormitory had a maximum capacity of 50 beds and housed 44 detainees, making social distancing impossible. He alleged that supervisors did not follow proper social-distancing procedures, the day room and sleeping area lacked windows, one fan provided the only air circulation, 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.

Screening standard

Because Buchanan was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants and had permission to proceed without prepaying fees, 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 claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible, while interpreting a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

Claims against the State of New York

The court dismissed Buchanan’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York. It held that New York had not waived its protection under the Eleventh Amendment and that Congress had not removed that protection when it enacted § 1983. The court added that, even without that protection, the complaint would fail 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 and the City of New York

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because an agency of New York City generally is not a separate suable entity. Because the complaint clearly intended to assert claims involving the City of New York, the court construed the complaint as naming the City and directed the clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City in the caption. The court stated that this change did not prevent the City from asserting any defenses.

To state a § 1983 claim against the City, Buchanan would need to allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court explained that allegations of wrongdoing by individual municipal employees, without facts connecting the wrongdoing to a City policy, custom, or practice, are not enough by themselves.

Potential claims against individual defendants

The complaint did not name individual defendants or provide enough facts to state a constitutional claim based on the conditions of confinement. The court explained that the applicable constitutional provision would depend on whether Buchanan was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. In either situation, he would need to allege that the conditions posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm to his health or safety and that the responsible official met the applicable deliberate-indifference standard. For a pretrial detainee, that would require allegations that the official intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to act with reasonable care despite knowing, or having reason to know, of an excessive risk. For a convicted prisoner, the standard would require allegations that the official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk.

The court directed Buchanan, if he amended his complaint, to state whether he was a pretrial detainee; identify the housing units and specific conditions involved; describe facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm; identify each person’s personal involvement; and provide facts supporting any requested release. The court also explained that he could use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if he did not yet know an individual defendant’s name, but that doing so would not pause the three-year limitations period.

Disposition

The court dismissed Buchanan’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 Buchanan leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and needed to include all facts and claims he wanted the court to consider. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.