Patterson v. Colon

Background

Andre Patterson, a state prison inmate at Otisville Correctional Facility, sued correctional officer Francisco J. Colon. Patterson alleged that on July 6, 2020, Colon ordered him to tear down a plywood ceiling in the prison recreation yard and remove bird feces, a carcass, dust, and alleged asbestos-related materials. Patterson alleged that he lacked training in removing hazardous materials, protested the assignment, and was threatened with a misbehavior report if he refused. Colon gave him a jumpsuit and dust mask, but Patterson alleged that an avalanche of dust, bird feces, feathers, and other material fell on him. He said he inhaled the material and experienced coughing, burning and watering eyes, shortness of breath, fatigue, an irregular heart rhythm, headaches, and vision problems.

Legal question and analysis

The court treated Patterson’s complaint as asserting that Colon was deliberately indifferent to a serious safety and health risk, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. For an unsafe-prison-conditions claim, a prisoner must plausibly allege both an objectively serious deprivation and that the official knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court held that Patterson did not satisfy the objective requirement. Although the assignment sounded unpleasant, Patterson did not identify the alleged asbestos-related material or explain why it was hazardous. He also did not allege that the material was friable—that is, in a condition that releases asbestos fibers when disturbed—or that the asbestos concentration was unreasonably high. The court noted that the alleged exposure was brief and that the proportion of asbestos in the mixed debris was unknown.

The court also held that Patterson did not satisfy the subjective requirement. Patterson’s statement that Colon was “keenly aware” of the danger was conclusory and conflicted with his allegation that Colon lacked knowledge about hazardous-material removal. Ordering Patterson to perform a task despite his protests, providing a jumpsuit and mask, and joking after the debris fell on Patterson did not plausibly show that Colon understood the task presented a substantial risk of serious harm. The court concluded that Patterson alleged, at most, negligence, which is not enough for deliberate indifference.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel granted Colon’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Patterson’s Eighth Amendment claim and declined to grant leave to amend again because Patterson had already amended once after receiving notice of the proposed deficiencies, had not requested another amendment, and had not indicated what additional facts would cure the problems. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and close the case. The opinion’s conclusion refers to “Defendants’ motion,” although the caption identifies one defendant, Francisco J. Colon.