Brown v. City of New York

Background

Paul Brown, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under Section 1983 against the City of New York. He alleged that the City violated his rights while he was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island from December 20, 2020, through May 13, 2021, by failing to implement appropriate COVID-19 precautions. He alleged inadequate social distancing, testing, and personal protective equipment, and said that he feared for his life because he was asthmatic. He sought $10 million in damages.

The City moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could rule for the opposing party. The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave, who recommended granting it. Brown objected to the recommendation, but the district court found that his objections largely repeated his earlier arguments.

Evidence Regarding COVID-19 Measures

The evidence described COVID-19 procedures at the facility, including symptom screening, testing, quarantine for people who declined testing, special housing for people who tested positive or had symptoms, cleaning and sanitizing, air-filter and ventilation measures, masks, social-distancing efforts, vaccination offers, and inspections. Brown was screened for COVID-19 symptoms at least seventeen times and tested negative at least three times.

The record contained no evidence that Brown had been diagnosed with asthma, had asthma symptoms, or sought medical care for asthma before or during his detention. The court therefore found no evidence that the City or the facility was deliberately indifferent—that is, that it intentionally imposed the alleged conditions or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps to reduce the risk—to Brown’s medical condition.

Conditions-of-Confinement and Monell Claims

The court agreed with Judge Cave that Brown had not produced evidence creating a genuine dispute about either part of his conditions-of-confinement claim. The objective part required evidence of a substantial risk of serious harm in light of the facility’s countermeasures. The subjective part required evidence that the City acted with deliberate indifference. The court held that the evidence of the City’s COVID-19 measures, combined with the lack of evidence supporting Brown’s asthma allegation, did not satisfy either part.

Brown’s related Monell claim also failed because he had not shown an underlying constitutional violation. A Monell claim is a claim that a municipality is responsible for a constitutional violation caused by its policy, practice, or decision; the court stated that Brown had not demonstrated the required underlying violation.

Administrative Exhaustion

The court also adopted the recommendation that Brown had not exhausted the facility’s four-level grievance process before filing suit. Brown filed two COVID-19-related grievances, but the evidence did not show that he completed the required appeals. He filed the complaint only sixteen days after the first grievance and five days after the second. The court found no basis to excuse exhaustion or to treat the grievance process as unavailable to him. This was a separate, alternative basis for granting the City’s motion.

Disposition

The court overruled Brown’s objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and granted the City summary judgment on Brown’s claims. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion, mail Brown a copy of the order, and close the case. The order does not state that the claims were dismissed with or without prejudice.