Herbert v. Ginty

Background

Jeremiah F. Herbert, a pretrial detainee at Sullivan County Jail, proceeded without a lawyer and without paying court fees. He sued Janet Calangelo, Michael Ruggiero, Steven Matis, Warden Harold L. Smith, James E. Ginty, and Chris Bini under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His Second Operative Pleading asserted one religious-discrimination claim under both the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and four Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims.

The conditions claims concerned: (1) an alleged June 5, 2020 assault in the D-Pod housing unit; (2) alleged denial of medical care and minimum life necessities; (3) mold, mildew, and sewage in the showers; and (4) ignored sick-call slips. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the pleading states a legally sufficient claim.

Religious-Discrimination Claims

The court dismissed both theories of religious discrimination. For the First Amendment theory, Herbert alleged that all defendants made derogatory remarks and physically attacked him because of his religion, but he did not identify which defendant made which statement or carried out which attack. The court held that these allegations did not adequately show each defendant’s personal involvement, which is required for a claim under § 1983.

For the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act theory, Herbert did not allege when or how the attacks occurred, who committed them, or how they substantially burdened his religious beliefs. The court therefore dismissed that claim as inadequately pleaded.

Failure-to-Protect Claim

Herbert alleged that he was placed in a housing unit with Trevor Nelson and Joseph Powell even though they were subject to keep-separate or no-contact orders, and that they then punched, harassed, beat, and assaulted him. The court previously found that these allegations satisfied the objective requirement of showing a substantial risk of serious harm.

The court held that Herbert had now plausibly alleged the required awareness and conduct as to Smith, Bini, and Ginty. Herbert alleged that those defendants issued the keep-separate order, which supported an inference that they knew about it. He also alleged that they nevertheless placed him with Nelson and Powell despite knowing about the order and the risk. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss this claim as to Smith, Bini, and Ginty.

The court dismissed the same claim as to Calangelo, Ruggiero, and Matis because Herbert did not allege how those defendants knew that the no-contact order existed. The conclusion states that this dismissal was with prejudice.

Medical Needs and Minimum Life Necessities

The court dismissed Herbert’s claim concerning medical needs and minimum life necessities. Herbert alleged severe physical and psychological injuries, including breathing problems, headaches, back pain, and sinus problems, but did not explain how or when medical care was denied or what effect the denial had on his health. The court held that he therefore failed to allege an objectively serious medical condition or an excessive risk to his health or safety and did not reach the required awareness component.

Shower Conditions

The court dismissed the claim concerning mold, mildew, sewage, and other unsanitary shower conditions. Herbert alleged generally that all defendants were responsible for health and safety violations, but did not explain what role any particular defendant played in creating or maintaining the conditions. The court held that these allegations did not establish the defendants’ personal involvement.

Ignored Sick-Call Slips

The court dismissed the sick-call-slips claim. Herbert alleged that the defendants purposefully ignored his slips, but provided no facts showing that he had a sufficiently serious medical condition or that the defendants knew of a substantial risk of serious harm. The court held that these conclusory allegations failed at the objective stage of the claim.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed with prejudice the claims concerning religious attacks, medical care and minimum life necessities, shower conditions, and ignored sick-call slips. It dismissed with prejudice the failure-to-protect claim as to Calangelo, Matis, and Ruggiero, while allowing that claim to proceed against Smith, Bini, and Ginty. Those three defendants were ordered to answer within fourteen days, and the case was then to proceed to discovery.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Herbert the ability to appeal without paying the filing fee. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, remove Calangelo, Ruggiero, and Matis as defendants, and mail Herbert a copy of the opinion and order.