Fashaw v. The State of New York

Background

Kashawn A. Fashaw filed a self-represented civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility. He alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights during periods of City and State custody and while he was detained at the Otis B. Bantam Center on Rikers Island. His allegations included inadequate mental-health treatment, poor discharge planning, improper gang classification, attacks by other prisoners, exposure to COVID-19, denial of custody credit, a parole-violation arrest based on what he called a negligent warrant, and harassment by a warrant squad.

The court had previously allowed Fashaw to proceed without paying filing fees and had directed him to amend his complaint. That earlier order explained that he had not adequately shown personal involvement by properly named defendants, deliberate indifference to his health or safety, or a basis for municipal liability. It also explained that New York State and its agencies are immune from damages suits, that some claims appeared untimely or connected to events in other federal districts, and that the court would not intervene in ongoing state criminal proceedings.

Fashaw filed a second amended complaint that was 211 pages long with attachments. The court found that it continued to name defendants who were immune or not suable, failed to provide sufficient facts about when and where events occurred or how individual defendants violated his rights, and attached numerous documents without explaining their relevance.

Court’s reasoning

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement explaining why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Although courts read self-represented pleadings generously, the same basic pleading requirements apply to self-represented and represented plaintiffs. The court stated that it was not required to search through the record and attachments to determine what claims Fashaw intended to bring.

The court concluded that the second amended complaint did not comply with the pleading rules and did not correct the deficiencies identified in the prior order. It dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and on immunity grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii).

Disposition

The court dismissed Fashaw’s second amended complaint. It granted him leave to replead claims arising from his detention at the Otis B. Bantam Center by filing a third amended complaint within 60 days. The new pleading must identify the individuals allegedly involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe injuries, and state the requested relief. The court instructed him not to assert claims arising more than three years before the original complaint or claims seeking intervention in ongoing state criminal proceedings.

The court stated that the third amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier pleadings. It warned that failure to file within the allowed time, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.