Garrett v. Cummberbatch

Background

Nicole Garrett, who was detained at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island, brought a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Karen Cummberbatch. The opinion identifies Cummberbatch as a social services counselor at the facility. Garrett alleged that, after her legal guardian, mother, and aunt died in December 2022, she completed paperwork to attend the funeral or participate by video. According to Garrett, Cummberbatch never submitted the paperwork. Garrett’s brother allegedly made several unanswered calls to the social services department. Garrett sought $100,000 in compensatory damages for mental anguish, although she did not list injuries in the complaint’s injury section.

The court had previously allowed Garrett to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Because Garrett was a prisoner seeking relief against a government employee, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and the statutes governing complaints filed without prepayment of fees.

Claims and analysis

The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a constitutional or federal statutory right by a person acting under state law.

First, the court held that Garrett did not state a claim based solely on being unable to attend her relative’s funeral. Prisoners and pretrial detainees do not have a constitutional right to attend a relative’s funeral.

Second, the court considered whether Garrett’s reference to mental anguish could assert a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a claim requires conduct that is extremely egregious and conscience-shocking, rather than merely incorrect, ill-advised, or negligent. The court found that Garrett’s allegations suggested, at most, that Cummberbatch negligently failed to file the paperwork. Garrett alleged no facts showing that Cummberbatch intended to cause psychological harm or acted in a way that would shock the conscience. The court therefore found that the complaint failed to state a substantive due process claim as pleaded.

Disposition

The court granted Garrett leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include the facts and claims Garrett wanted the court to consider. The court directed Garrett to provide facts identifying who violated her rights, what each person did or failed to do, when and where the events occurred, her injuries, and the relief sought.

The court stated that if Garrett did not timely file the amended complaint and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Garrett permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.