Elting v. Lassiter

Background

Deon Elting, a former inmate at Otisville Correctional Facility, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Corrections Officer Tasheka Lassiter and Superintendent Delta Barometre. Elting alleged that Lassiter repeatedly sexually assaulted him between May 2019 and early 2020. He alleged that Barometre was deliberately indifferent to serious risks to his safety because she set or reviewed staffing policies that left Lassiter as the only corrections officer continually monitoring Building 107 and provided for supervisory rounds approximately once an hour.

The pending motion was brought only by Barometre. She moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. At this stage, the court accepted the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Elting’s favor.

Legal standard

Elting’s claim against Barometre was based on the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. To plead deliberate indifference under § 1983, Elting had to allege both an objectively serious risk of harm and that Barometre personally knew of and disregarded that risk. The court explained that, after the Second Circuit’s decision in Tangreti v. Bachmann, a supervisor cannot be held liable merely because she supervised other officials or should have known about a risk. The complaint must allege facts supporting Barometre’s own personal involvement and required state of mind.

The court identified three relevant pleading requirements: Elting had to allege that Barometre was responsible for creating or continuing the staffing policies, that those policies caused the alleged constitutional violation, and that Barometre acted with deliberate indifference by knowing that the policies presented a substantial risk of sexual assault.

Analysis

The court found that the complaint adequately alleged Barometre’s responsibility for staffing policies and plausibly alleged that the staffing and supervisory-round policies caused the alleged assaults. The complaint stated that Barometre was personally involved in setting and reviewing staffing plans and policies and that understaffing and infrequent, nonrandom supervisory rounds allowed Lassiter to isolate and assault inmates.

The complaint did not, however, adequately allege the required deliberate-indifference mental state. The 2021 Prison Rape Elimination Act audit occurred after the alleged abuse and after Elting left Otisville, so it could not have put Barometre on notice that Elting faced a risk of sexual assault. The complaint referred generally to Corrections Department regulations but did not describe their contents or explain how they alerted Barometre to a risk to Elting. It also did not allege that a February 2020 report about Lassiter’s overly friendly behavior was made to Barometre or otherwise came to her attention before Elting’s transfer. Finally, the complaint did not allege that Barometre knew of earlier sexual-abuse incidents at Otisville.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because the court could not conclude at that stage that the pleading defects could not be cured, it granted Elting leave to move to amend. The court ordered that any motion for leave to amend be filed by December 28, 2023, with the proposed second amended complaint attached as an exhibit.

Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted Barometre’s motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate that motion. The order also stated that the discovery stay concerning Barometre would remain in place because it was still unclear whether Elting could adequately plead a § 1983 claim against her. The opinion did not rule on the allegations against Lassiter.