Megginson v. The Bridge Inc.

Background

Michael E. Megginson, who was incarcerated at the time of the order, filed the action without a lawyer. He alleged that he had lived in transitional housing provided by The Bridge, Inc. In May 2021, he alleged, Crystal Ulerio, a Dreamland Security employee working as a security guard at the residence, invited him to her home, gave him food and drink containing narcotics that caused him to lose consciousness, and then had sexual intercourse with him. He also alleged that Ulerio later went to his apartment while on duty for additional sexual encounters.

Megginson alleged that he told social worker Dannielle Belle and evening supervisor Yarah E. about Ulerio’s conduct, but they did not believe him. He claimed that staff promoted abuse and neglected him by failing to act. The Bridge later fired Ulerio, notified authorities, and notified the New York State Justice Center for people with disabilities. Megginson sued The Bridge, Inc.; Belle; Makiala Myers; Yarah E.; Ulerio; and Dreamland Security Co. He asserted unspecified constitutional claims and state-law claims for sexual abuse, neglect, and abuse, seeking $5 million in damages.

Screening standard

The court reviewed the complaint under statutes requiring screening of certain prisoner and fee-waived complaints. It explained that a complaint may be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or is filed in a case over which the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers generously, those complaints still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

Section 1983 and state action

The court treated Megginson’s constitutional allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal-law right and action by a person acting under color of state law—that is, action fairly attributable to the government.

The court found that Megginson had not alleged facts showing state action by any defendant. It described The Bridge, Inc. as a private nonprofit entity and Dreamland Security Co. as a private company. The court explained that private conduct may qualify as state action in limited circumstances, including when the government compels or controls the conduct, jointly participates in it, or delegates a public function to the private entity. Public funding, regulation, or government contracts alone do not establish state action.

The court concluded that providing voluntary supportive housing did not, on the allegations presented, make The Bridge a state actor. Megginson also had not shown that Dreamland acted under color of state law in providing security services. The court found no such allegations regarding Ulerio, Myers, or Yarah E. It also found that Megginson’s reference to Belle as an “OMH Program Director” was insufficient to establish whether she worked for a government agency rather than The Bridge, and therefore insufficient to plead that she was a state actor. The court held that the complaint failed to state a Section 1983 claim against any defendant.

Due-process guidance

The court stated that Megginson’s allegations that defendants failed to protect him from assault could potentially be read as a substantive due-process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. It explained, however, that the Constitution generally does not require the state to protect people from private actors.

The court identified two exceptions recognized by the Second Circuit: a special relationship between the state or its agents and the victim, or state conduct that helped create or increase the danger. Even if one of those exceptions applied, the alleged conduct would also have to be so extreme that it “shocks the contemporary conscience.” The court stated that, for this purpose, conduct intended to injure in a way unjustifiable by any government interest may qualify, while negligent harm does not. The court directed that any amended complaint naming a state actor would need to allege one of those exceptions and conduct meeting that standard.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because Megginson was representing himself and the court found it unclear whether he could allege facts establishing state action, the court granted him leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to identify the relevant people and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where it occurred, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. It would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims he wanted considered had to be repeated.

The court granted leave to file the amended complaint within 60 days, directed that it be submitted to the Pro Se Intake Unit and labeled as an amended complaint with docket number 21-CV-9626, and stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Megginson failed to comply without showing good cause, the court stated that his Section 1983 claim would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim and that the court would decline supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims, which would also be dismissed without prejudice to pursuing them in state court. The court further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.