Hickman v. The City of New York

Background

Quandell Hickman, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that cameras installed in the housing units of the Manhattan Detention Center pointed directly toward and into the showers, allowing staff to watch recordings repeatedly without inmates’ consent. He claimed that the surveillance invaded his privacy and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. He sought $500,000 in damages and an order requiring removal of the cameras.

The City moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court evaluated that motion under the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: accepting well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asking whether they plausibly showed an entitlement to relief. Hickman did not oppose the motion, but the court explained that his failure to respond did not by itself require dismissal.

Fourth Amendment claim

The court treated Hickman’s privacy allegation as a claim that the shower surveillance constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. It recognized that incarcerated people retain a limited right to bodily privacy, subject to prison-security needs. But the court concluded that visual monitoring of prison showers generally has a security justification and that Hickman did not allege facts showing that the surveillance was intended to humiliate, harass, or abuse him. He also did not identify an individual involved in the surveillance. The court therefore concluded that his Fourth Amendment claim was not viable.

Eighth Amendment claim

Although Hickman did not identify the constitutional provisions supporting his claims, the court separately considered the Eighth Amendment. It concluded that the alleged surveillance did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment because Hickman did not allege physical contact or personal harassment by prison officials, and the conduct alleged was not sufficiently severe under the cited legal standard.

Municipal-liability claim

The court also rejected any claim that the City was liable under § 1983 for its policies or practices. A municipality can be liable under that statute only when an underlying constitutional violation exists; the court had found no viable Fourth or Eighth Amendment violation here.

State-law claim

Hickman also asserted intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York law. The court did not decide whether the allegations satisfied that claim’s elements. Instead, because it dismissed the federal claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice.

Disposition and opportunity to amend

The court granted the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. It nevertheless allowed Hickman, who was representing himself, to file an amended complaint by July 19, 2021. He was not required to amend. The court stated that if he did not replead by that date, it would dismiss his federal claims with prejudice.