Moultrie v. New York City Department of Corrections, A.M.K.C.

Background

Mukadien Moultrie, who represented himself, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by government officials. He alleged that, while he was in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction in November 2020, another Department of Correction prisoner punched him in the face. He alleged pain on both sides of his face and said medical personnel treated him with acetaminophen. He sought damages.

The court had previously allowed Moultrie to proceed without paying the filing fee. It reviewed the complaint under the screening rules for such cases, which require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that complaints filed by people without lawyers are read liberally but still must include enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims Against the Department of Correction

The court ruled that the Department of Correction, as an agency of New York City, is not an entity that can be sued in its own name. Claims that Moultrie wished to bring against the Department instead had to be brought against the City of New York. The court further explained that a claim against the City under § 1983 requires facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation. Moultrie did not allege facts suggesting that such a policy, custom, or practice caused his injuries.

Failure to Protect

The court analyzed Moultrie’s allegations as a claim that officials were deliberately indifferent to a risk to his safety. For a pretrial detainee, that claim requires facts showing both an objectively serious risk of harm and that an official intentionally created the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing, or having reason to know, about the excessive risk. Mere negligence is not enough for a § 1983 constitutional claim.

The complaint did not explain facts showing that Moultrie faced an objectively serious risk. It referred to assaults on November 27 and November 30, 2020, but did not make clear whether there were two assaults. The court noted that facts such as being housed again with a prisoner who had already assaulted him could potentially show a serious risk. The complaint also did not allege that any Department of Correction employee knew or should have known that the prisoner who punched Moultrie posed an excessive risk to his safety.

The court additionally found that Moultrie had not alleged the direct, personal involvement of any individual defendant. A person cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because that person supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated constitutional rights.

Disposition

The court found that the complaint failed to state a § 1983 claim and ruled that claims against the Department of Correction could not proceed against that agency in its own name. Because Moultrie might be able to state a valid failure-to-protect claim by providing additional facts, the court granted him leave to amend within 60 days. The amended complaint had to identify the people allegedly involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. The order states that if Moultrie did not comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the § 1983 claims would be dismissed and the court would decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.