Rose v. The State of New York

Background

Darrell Rose filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for constitutional violations by government officials acting under state law. Rose alleged that the defendants failed to adequately protect him from the risk of contracting COVID-19 while he was incarcerated at the Vernon C. Bain Center on Rikers Island. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

Rose originally filed the complaint with 41 other people detained at the facility. The court severed the claims and opened separate actions. It later directed Rose to identify the people involved in the alleged deprivation of his federal rights and to provide facts supporting a claim under § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Screening standard

Because Rose was a prisoner proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court was required to screen his complaint. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court had to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that it would read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally, but the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make liability plausible rather than merely possible.

New York City Department of Correction

The court dismissed Rose’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction because, under New York City law, a city agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued. Because Rose clearly intended to assert claims against the City of New York, the court directed the Clerk of Court to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York in the caption. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City might later assert.

R. Ksetka

The court held that a § 1983 claim requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. Rose did not allege facts showing how Correction Officer R. Ksetka was personally involved. The court therefore dismissed the claims against Ksetka for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Additional defendants and service

Rose sought to add Correction Officer Lyon #3407, Correction Officer Richardson #3854, Correction Officer #1830, and Correction Officer #18144. The court directed the Clerk to add Lyon and Richardson as defendants. It declined to add Officers #1830 and #18144 at that time because the amended complaint did not allege facts suggesting that they were personally involved in the events underlying Rose’s claims.

The court requested that Deputy Guity, Captain Chacara, Correction Officer #17482, Richardson, Lyon, and the City of New York waive service of summons. It also directed that the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department receive electronic notice of the order.

Disposition

The court dismissed Rose’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction and R. Ksetka for failure to state a claim. It directed that the City of New York, Lyon, and Richardson be added as defendants, allowing the action to proceed through the service process against the defendants identified in the order. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Rose permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.