Swinnie v. The State of New York

Background

Darron Swinnie, proceeding without a lawyer, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of federal constitutional rights by state actors. He 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.

Swinnie alleged that he was housed in Dorm 1BB, which had a maximum capacity of 50 beds and housed 44 detainees. He claimed that staff did not follow proper social-distancing procedures, the day room and sleeping area lacked windows, and one fan circulated dust through the dorm. He also alleged that the detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID-19 symptoms. He sought money damages.

Swinnie originally filed the complaint with 41 other detainees. The court had previously separated the other detainees’ claims, leaving Swinnie as the sole plaintiff in this action. The court had also allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, although the order noted that prisoners remain responsible for paying the full filing fee over time.

Screening standard

The court screened the complaint under federal laws requiring review of prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or employees. The court 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 subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but they still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible. Legal conclusions alone are not enough.

Claims against New York State

The court dismissed Swinnie’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York. It held that the state’s immunity under the Eleventh Amendment barred the claims because New York had not waived that immunity and Congress had not removed it when it enacted § 1983.

The court added that, even without that immunity, the complaint would fail to state a claim against New York State because the Vernon C. Bain Center is operated by the New York City Department of Correction and is not a state facility.

Claims against the Department of Correction and the City

The court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency is not an entity that can generally be sued separately. Because Swinnie 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 replacement was without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert.

The court explained that municipal liability under § 1983 requires more than an allegation that a city employee did something wrong. Swinnie’s amended complaint would need to allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice existed and caused a violation of his constitutional rights.

Possible claims against individual officials

The court explained that the constitutional basis of Swinnie’s conditions-of-confinement claim would depend on whether he was a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. In either event, he would need to allege that the conditions created an unreasonable risk of serious harm to his health or safety and that the relevant official acted with the required level of disregard for that risk.

For a convicted prisoner, the official generally must have known about and disregarded an excessive risk. For a pretrial detainee, the official must have intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to act with reasonable care to reduce a known or reasonably knowable excessive risk. Mere negligence is not enough for a federal constitutional claim under § 1983.

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

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Swinnie leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to identify the defendants in the caption and provide the relevant events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. It would completely replace the original complaint, so any claims or facts Swinnie wanted to preserve had to be included again.

The court’s conclusion states that it dismissed Swinnie’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 allowed Swinnie to amend. No summons would issue at that time. If Swinnie failed to amend within the allowed period 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 from this order.