Richardson v. The State of New York

Background

Kevin R. Richardson filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by state actors. He alleged that the State of New York and the Department of Correction failed to protect him from contracting COVID-19 while he was detained in Dorm 1BB at the Vernon C. Bain Center. According to the complaint, the dorm had 44 detainees in a space with a maximum capacity of 50 beds; staff allegedly did not follow social-distancing procedures; the day room and sleeping area had no windows; and one fan provided the only air circulation. Richardson also alleged that detainees experienced coughing, sore throats, headaches, dizziness, and COVID symptoms. He sought money damages.

The case originally included Richardson and 41 other detainees. The court had previously separated the other detainees’ claims, leaving Richardson as the only plaintiff in this case. The court had also allowed Richardson to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under federal laws requiring review of prisoner complaints against governmental entities. It explained that a complaint must contain enough factual detail to make a legal claim plausible, although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally.

The court dismissed Richardson’s claims against the State of New York. It held that the State had not waived its protection under the Eleventh Amendment, and that Congress had not removed that protection when it enacted § 1983. The court also stated that, even without that 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 a state facility.

The court also dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency is generally not a separate entity that can be sued. Because the court understood Richardson to intend to sue the City of New York, it directed the clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City as a defendant. The court stated that this replacement did not limit any defenses the City might assert.

The court explained that a § 1983 claim against the City would require facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation. The complaint would not be enough merely by alleging wrongdoing by City employees or agents.

The court further explained the requirements for claims against individual correction officials. If Richardson was a pretrial detainee, the claims would arise under the Fourteenth Amendment; if he was a convicted prisoner, they would arise under the Eighth Amendment. In either situation, he would need to allege that the conditions posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm and that the relevant official acted with the required level of deliberate indifference. The court found that the complaint did not provide enough facts and did not identify individual defendants.

Ruling and next steps

The court dismissed Richardson’s claims against the State of New York and the Department of Correction. It added the City of New York as a defendant and granted Richardson leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days.

The amended complaint must identify the relevant defendants, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide the approximate dates and locations of the events, describe Richardson’s injuries, and state the relief requested. Richardson could use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if he did not know an individual defendant’s name, but the court warned that doing so would not pause the three-year limitations period. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. 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 proceed without prepaying the appeal filing fee. If Richardson did not timely file an amended complaint or show good cause for failing to do so, the court stated that the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.