Garland v. Clinton Correctional Facility

Background

Tamarkqua Garland brought this action against the City of New York, Correction Officer Covington, Correction Officer Perrone, and Correction Captain Pines. The opinion states that Garland proceeded without a lawyer and originally filed the case while incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility. He later was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility. Garland sought damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used to sue state or local actors for constitutional violations, and under state law.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed Garland’s § 1983 claims under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court explained that negligence did not establish a federal constitutional violation and that Garland had not alleged facts showing correctional officials were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk to his health or safety. The court also dismissed the claims against the City because Garland had not alleged that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation. In addition, the court found untimely claims arising from alleged incidents on October 4, 2014, May 5, 2015, and September 24, 2015, including excessive-force claims against Covington and Perrone and a failure-to-intervene claim against Pines.

Second amended complaint and ruling

The court treated a letter Garland filed on May 24, 2023, as his second amended complaint. Garland named the same defendants and asserted the same general types of federal and state-law claims. The court had allowed him 60 days to allege facts supporting conditions-of-confinement claims, claims against the City, and the timeliness of his § 1983 claims or any basis for extending the applicable time limits. The court concluded that the second amended complaint did not change its prior analysis.

The court dismissed Garland’s § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). It declined to consider the state-law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction, which is the authority to hear related state-law claims in a federal case. The court dismissed the action and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

Appeal-related ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.