Singleton v. Department of Correction

Background

Divine V. Singleton, who was proceeding without a lawyer and was a pretrial detainee, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He alleged that while in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction, he contracted COVID-19, was quarantined with other detainees who had the virus, did not receive adequate medical care, and was denied a second COVID-19 test before being transferred. He also alleged that clothing and linens supplied by Bob Barker Co., Inc., Corcraft, and Northwest Woolen Mills could spread the virus because the virus could remain on polyester and cotton.

Singleton sought money damages and asked to be relieved of unspecified charges. The court had previously granted him permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, but it screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to review qualifying prisoner complaints and dismiss claims that are frivolous, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fail to state a legally sufficient claim.

Rulings on the Defendants

The court dismissed the claims against Bob Barker, Inc., Corcraft, and Northwest Woolen Mills. Section 1983 generally requires conduct under state authority, and the court held that these manufacturers were private entities rather than state actors. The complaint therefore did not state a claim against them under that statute.

The court also dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency generally cannot be sued as a separate entity. Because the complaint showed that Singleton intended to sue the City, the court directed the Clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York. The court explained that this caption change did not prevent the City from raising defenses.

The court dismissed the claims against Dr. John Winters and Lourdes Cantor. As to the alleged unsafe conditions and medical care, the court said Singleton had not alleged facts plausibly showing that the conditions created a serious health or safety risk known to the officials, that the officials recklessly failed to address that risk, or that he received inadequate medical care. The court also found that Singleton had not alleged facts connecting a constitutional violation to a City policy, custom, or practice, as required for municipal liability under Section 1983.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Singleton leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. It instructed him to identify the people personally involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. Any facts or claims from the original complaint that he wanted the court to consider had to be repeated because the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

The court’s conclusion states that it dismissed Singleton’s claims against the Department of Correction, Bob Barker, Inc., Corcraft, Northwest Woolen Mills, Dr. John Winters, and Lourdes Cantor. It added the City of New York as a defendant, granted leave to amend, and warned that failure to amend on time could result in dismissal of the complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.