Flores v. The City of New York

Background

Gabriel Flores, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York and 65 employees. He alleged that, while held at several detention facilities, he experienced unreasonable restrictions and inhumane living conditions connected in part to Command Level Order 370.20 and an August 10, 2020 Judicial Lockdown Order. He also alleged that Command Level Order 370.20 violated minimum standards set by the New York City Board of Correction.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Flores did not oppose the motion. The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Katharine Parker, who issued a 68-page Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion be granted in part and denied in part.

Objection and review

The moving defendants objected to the recommendation that the complaint satisfied Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Flores filed no objection. Because the Report and Recommendation clearly warned that failing to object would waive judicial review, the district court held that Flores waived review of the portions to which he had not objected. The court nevertheless reviewed those portions for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record.

Judge Gardephe reviewed the defendants’ Rule 8 objection independently. He agreed that the complaint adequately described the nature of Flores’s claims and was not so confused, vague, or unintelligible that dismissal under Rule 8(a) was warranted. He therefore overruled the defendants’ objection.

Ruling

The court found no clear error in the unchallenged portions of the Report and Recommendation and adopted it in its entirety.

The court dismissed Flores’s claims against Stukes, Grossman, Jennings, Morales, and Matos because the complaint did not sufficiently allege their personal involvement in the claimed constitutional violations.

The court left the following categories of claims in the case:

- Claims that Rene, DeJesus, “Smith #5084,” Chuck, Vasquez, White, Subervi, Feliz, Guzman, and Camacho mistreated Flores and subjected him to a policy of housing inmates based on “security risk group” at the Otis Barnum Correctional Center and the Vernon C. Bain Center. - Claims that Hickson, McNeil, White, and Carter interfered with confidential communications with Flores’s attorney and his receipt of mail from the attorney, allegedly violating the First and Sixth Amendments. - Claims that Lawrence, Oxley, Louis, and Loiseau showed deliberate indifference to Flores’s medical needs related to smoke inhalation. - Claims that Dunbar, Henry, Nzeama, Ritter, Hickson, McNeil, Carter, and Law retaliated against Flores for filing grievances, allegedly violating the First Amendment. - Claims that Rene, Law, and Dychese placed Flores in enhanced restraints during exercise, allegedly violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. - Claims that McNeil, Oxley, Rodriguez, and Young denied Flores the right to exercise his religion under the First Amendment and violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. - Excessive-force claims against Palmer-Campbell, Carter, Blake, Humphries, Castro, Likoua, Smith, Vasquez, Williams, Arias, and Rei.

The court also left adequately pleaded municipal-liability claims against the City, Dunbar, and Rene concerning a policy or practice of using enhanced restraints during recreation and restricting religious texts other than the Bible. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions and all defendants other than the City and the defendants identified by the court as remaining in the case.