Gil-Cabrera v. Department of Corrections

Background

Ricardo Gil-Cabrera brought a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York. He alleged that, while he was a pretrial detainee at the Vernon C. Bain Center from at least September 22, 2020, through December 26, 2020, the City failed to take adequate steps to reduce the risk of COVID-19. His allegations included overcrowding, beds positioned close together, shared sinks, toilets, and showers, and the admission of people before their COVID-19 test results were available. He also alleged that these conditions caused him emotional harm and frightened him because he had asthma.

The court previously dismissed the claims against the individual defendants, as well as Gil-Cabrera’s Equal Protection claim and his claim for punitive damages. The remaining claims were for deliberate indifference to the conditions of confinement and municipal liability against the City. The City moved for summary judgment, and the motion was unopposed.

Evidence concerning COVID-19 protections

The City submitted evidence that newly admitted people were offered COVID-19 testing, housed separately while awaiting negative results, or quarantined if they declined testing. People who tested positive were moved to a designated area, and exposed housing units were maintained as cohorts for 14 days with additional testing offered. The facility also used cleaning and sanitizing procedures, provided soap and other cleaning supplies upon request, supplied masks, and required correctional officers to wear masks when inside the facility.

Gil-Cabrera testified that he had access to masks and cleaning supplies, and that correctional and medical staff who came near or treated him wore masks. He was screened for COVID-19 symptoms seven times and tested six times while in Department of Corrections custody. He did not contract COVID-19 while in custody. He was offered a vaccine but refused it because of concerns that it might be fatal. He testified that he was claiming emotional harm only and had not discussed his concerns with Department of Corrections medical staff.

Summary-judgment standard

The court explained that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Although Gil-Cabrera did not oppose the motion, the court could not grant summary judgment solely because he failed to respond. The City still had to support its factual assertions with record evidence and show that it was legally entitled to judgment. The court also confirmed that it had given Gil-Cabrera the required notice that failing to oppose the motion could result in dismissal.

Administrative exhaustion

The court first addressed the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement. That law generally bars a prisoner from bringing a federal action about prison conditions until available administrative remedies have been properly exhausted. The Department of Corrections provided people in its custody with an Inmate Handbook describing an Inmate Grievance Resolution Process for complaints about facility conditions.

The City provided evidence that this grievance process existed and applied to Gil-Cabrera’s claims. Gil-Cabrera did not allege or provide evidence that he had filed a grievance or completed the required grievance steps. His allegation that he complained to the city’s 311 system did not establish proper exhaustion of the jail’s grievance process. The court also found no evidence that the process was unavailable, that the City prevented him from using it, or that special circumstances justified his failure to use it.

Ruling

The court held that Gil-Cabrera’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies was undisputed. Because he had not exhausted the grievance process, the court granted summary judgment on his deliberate-indifference claim without deciding whether the alleged COVID-19 conditions violated his constitutional rights. The court further concluded that the municipal-liability claim could not proceed because, under the ruling cited by the court, municipal liability requires an underlying constitutional violation. Summary judgment was therefore also appropriate on that claim.

Disposition

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the City’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing case number 20-cv-9493 and close the case. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.