Singleton v. Department of Correction

Background

Divine V. Singleton filed this self-represented civil-rights action under Section 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local actors. He alleged that he contracted COVID-19 in February 2021 while in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction on Rikers Island. He suggested that clothing and linens supplied by several manufacturers acted as a “host” for spreading the virus. He also alleged that two medical providers denied him a second COVID-19 test before his transfer from Rikers Island to the Vernon C. Bain Center.

The court’s earlier orders dismissed claims against the initially named defendants and allowed Singleton to amend. The court directed him to identify the specific conditions that led to his illness and to provide facts supporting a claim that the City of New York was legally responsible. Singleton’s first amended complaint instead focused on other events at the Vernon C. Bain Center and on his state-court criminal proceedings. The court dismissed those new claims without prejudice to bringing them in a separate action and allowed Singleton to amend again regarding his COVID-19 allegations.

Second amended filings

Singleton’s second amended complaint was largely blank. It named the City of New York as the only defendant and stated only that he sought whatever relief the court considered just and suitable. In a letter filed on the same date, Singleton referred to COVID-19, disputed aspects of the pandemic and testing, and attributed some symptoms to radio waves from a 5G network. The court treated the second amended complaint and the letter together as the operative second amended complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the filings did not cure the deficiencies identified in the earlier order. Singleton did not allege facts indicating that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused him to contract COVID-19 on Rikers Island. The court also found that his assertions did not show that the City failed to protect him from a substantial risk of serious harm or that any individual deliberately disregarded a serious risk to his health or safety. The court therefore determined that Singleton failed to state a claim against the City or any other person.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which permits dismissal during review of an action filed without paying filing fees when the complaint fails to state a claim. Because Singleton had already been given opportunities to amend and the defects could not be cured by another amendment, the court declined to grant another opportunity to amend. The court also terminated all other pending matters, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied fee-free appellate status. The opinion does not describe the dismissal as with or without prejudice.