Garrett v. Cummberbatch

Background

Nicole Garrett, who was detained at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island, proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. She sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Karen Cummberbatch, identified as a social service counselor at the facility, violated Garrett’s constitutional rights.

Garrett alleged that she told Cummberbatch that her “legal guardian/Aunt/mother” had died. According to Garrett, Cummberbatch told her to complete a request to the warden to attend the funeral and gave her hope that she could attend in person or participate by video if an escort was unavailable. Garrett alleged that Cummberbatch failed to submit the paperwork, did not answer calls from Garrett’s family for a week before the funeral, and that another counselor later apologized and provided an obituary on the day of the service.

The court had previously directed Garrett to amend her original complaint. That earlier order explained that the original allegations did not establish a constitutional right to attend a relative’s funeral and did not state a substantive due process claim because the alleged failure to submit paperwork appeared, at most, negligent. The court allowed Garrett to amend to allege additional facts showing an intent to cause psychological harm or conduct that was extraordinarily egregious.

Federal Claims

The court concluded that the amended complaint essentially repeated the original allegations. It dismissed the § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

First, the court held that prisoners and pretrial detainees do not have a constitutional right to attend a relative’s funeral. Garrett therefore could not state a § 1983 claim based solely on her inability to attend the funeral.

Second, the court rejected Garrett’s substantive due process theory. Substantive due process protects against certain government conduct that is arbitrary, oppressive, or so extreme that it shocks the conscience. The court held that Garrett did not allege facts showing that Cummberbatch’s conduct met that standard. The court also stated that negligence does not amount to a constitutional violation under § 1983.

State-Law Claims and Amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Garrett may have been asserting. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims after federal claims are brought in the same action.

The court also denied further leave to amend. It explained that Garrett had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint and that the defects could not be cured by another amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim in which relief may be granted. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied Garrett’s fee-free status for purposes of an appeal, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.