Apuzzie v. Rivera

Background

John Apuzzie brought a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a person to seek relief for violations of federal rights by someone acting under state law. He alleged that, while detained at the Eric M. Taylor Center, a faulty or unsafe toilet broke while he was using it, causing permanent scarring and disfigurement to his right arm. He alleged that Captain Rivera and Warden Lynelle M. Liodie were responsible for overseeing detainees’ conditions and ensuring that toilets were safe and working. Apuzzie was transferred to the Vernon C. Bain Center on the day of the injury, where he received treatment. He sought $50,000 in damages.

The court had previously allowed Apuzzie to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Because he was a detained person seeking relief against government officials, 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, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated Apuzzie’s allegations as a claim that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to dangerous conditions of confinement. Because Apuzzie was a pretrial detainee, the claim arose under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He needed to allege both that the condition posed an objectively serious risk to his health or safety and that the defendant intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing, or having reason to know, of the excessive risk. Mere negligence does not establish a federal constitutional violation under § 1983.

The court concluded that Apuzzie had not alleged enough facts to meet that standard. He did not explain how the toilet broke, how it caused his injuries, why he believed it was unsafe, how severe its deterioration was, or when it broke. He also did not allege facts showing that Rivera or Liodie knew, or should have known, that the toilet posed an excessive risk and then failed to respond reasonably.

The court separately explained that § 1983 liability requires each defendant’s direct and personal involvement. A person cannot be held liable only because that person supervises employees who allegedly violated someone’s rights. Apuzzie alleged that Rivera and Liodie were responsible as supervisory officials, but he did not allege facts showing their personal involvement in the alleged violation.

Disposition

The court granted Apuzzie leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to identify the people personally and directly involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, describe the injuries, and state the relief sought. The amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint, so any facts or claims Apuzzie wanted to preserve had to be repeated.

The court directed Apuzzie to submit the amended complaint to the Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 21-CV-4700 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that, if Apuzzie failed to comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal from the order, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.