Ransom v. Andrews

Background

Christopher Ransom filed the complaint without a lawyer. He alleges that on or about July 9, 2021, while he was a pretrial detainee housed in the North Infirmary Command at Rikers Island, C.O. Andrews escorted him from the showers to his living quarters in rear cuffs. Ransom alleges that Andrews returned him to the cell without securing his cellmate, who then assaulted Ransom and knocked him unconscious, and that Andrews failed to intervene.

The court construed the complaint as asserting a damages claim against Andrews under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating Ransom’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The claim concerns whether correction officials failed to take reasonable measures to protect him from violence by another prisoner, including whether Andrews knew or should have known of a serious risk and disregarded it.

Ransom filed three letter-motions seeking additional discovery. The court reviewed those requests and Andrews’s responses.

Request No. 1: Facility guidelines and protocols

Ransom requested New York City Department of Correction guidelines or protocols in effect on July 9, 2021, concerning how to secure inmates or cellmates when placing a handcuffed or restrained inmate in a caged living area at the North Infirmary Command.

Andrews objected on relevance, burden, and security grounds. He argued that the protocols had limited relevance because Ransom had not asserted a claim against the City under Monell. The court rejected that argument. Although violating a facility guideline does not itself establish a constitutional violation, the existence of the guidelines and any failure to follow them could help show whether Andrews knew or should have known that placing a rear-cuffed prisoner with an uncuffed prisoner created a serious risk of harm. Andrews could also argue that he followed facility procedures and therefore had no reason to know of the alleged risk.

The court partly agreed with Andrews’s security concerns but found that they were not supported by specific facts sufficient to block disclosure altogether. The court ordered production of the relevant guidelines or protocols within 30 days. Nonresponsive portions could be redacted. Andrews could mark the documents confidential and submit a proposed confidentiality order for the court’s review within 10 days.

Request No. 2: Surveillance video

Ransom requested surveillance video or still images of Andrews escorting him to and from the shower, the assault, and Andrews escorting him to medical care. Andrews stated that he was continuing to search for responsive material and later reported that counsel had received no indication from the Department of Correction that the footage still existed.

The court declined to treat the issue as moot at that stage. It found the statement insufficiently detailed because it did not explain whether the Department of Correction had said that no cameras covered the area or that the footage had been lost or destroyed. The court ordered Andrews to submit, within 10 days, a letter describing the Department of Correction’s efforts to preserve the footage, counsel’s efforts to locate and produce it, and the Department of Correction’s responses.

Requests for admission and disposition

The court stated that part of Ransom’s July 25 letter could be read as seeking an order compelling responses to requests for admission. Those responses were not due until August 24, 2022, so the court found no present basis to compel them. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket 40.

Judge Barbara Moses ordered that Ransom’s letter-motions to compel additional discovery were granted in part and denied in part.