Garland v. Clinton Correctional Facility

Background

Tamarkqua Garland, who was incarcerated when he filed the action, represented himself. He sued the City of New York, Correction Officer Covington, Correction Officer Perrone, and Correction Captain Pines under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against certain government officials for violating constitutional rights. The court understood his amended complaint to include state-law claims as well.

Garland alleged that he slipped on a greasy kitchen floor at the George Motchan Detention Center on October 3, 2014, and suffered multiple injuries. He alleged that hot water scalded his back in a shower on May 5, 2015. He also alleged that Covington, Perrone, other unidentified officers, and Pines were involved in or failed to stop a violent attack on September 24, 2015. Garland sought damages for his injuries and related physical and emotional harm.

Federal Claims Based on the Fall and Scalding

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims arising from the fall and scalding because Garland alleged, at most, negligence. The court explained that negligence by correction officials does not by itself establish a federal constitutional violation. Garland did not allege facts showing that a correction official was deliberately indifferent—that is, acted with the required disregard for a serious risk to his health or safety.

The court stated that the allegations might support negligence claims under state law, but they did not state federal claims under Section 1983.

Claims Against the City

The court also dismissed Garland’s Section 1983 claims against the City of New York. A municipality is not liable under Section 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly acted wrongfully. Garland had to allege that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court found that his amended complaint described specific events but did not allege that a City policy, custom, or practice caused them.

Claims Based on the Alleged Attack

The court understood the amended complaint to assert excessive-force claims against Covington and Perrone and a failure-to-intervene claim against Pines based on the September 24, 2015 incident. The court dismissed those claims as untimely. Applying New York’s three-year limitation period for Section 1983 claims, the court determined that those claims accrued on September 24, 2015, and that the limitation period expired about three years later, before Garland filed this action on or about May 23, 2022.

The court likewise concluded that the claims arising from the fall and scalding were filed after their applicable limitation periods had expired. It dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, including because the time-bar was apparent from the face of the amended complaint.

Leave to Amend and Other Dispositions

Because Garland was representing himself and might be able to allege additional facts, the court granted him 60 days to file a second amended complaint. The new complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. The court directed Garland to include facts supporting his conditions-of-confinement claims, claims against the City, and the timeliness of his Section 1983 claims or reasons the limitation periods should be extended under state law.

The court dismissed Garland’s federal claims but did not finally decide the state-law claims. If Garland failed to file a second amended complaint within the permitted period or failed to show a sufficient reason for not doing so, the court said it would enter judgment dismissing the action on the stated federal-law grounds and decline to consider the state-law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. It referred Garland to the New York Legal Assistance Group’s clinic.