Goldson v. Department of Corrections, NYC

Background

Derwin Goldson, who was detained at the Eric M. Taylor Center on Rikers Island, brought this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named the New York City Department of Correction, the City of New York, and the warden of the Eric M. Taylor Center as defendants.

Goldson alleged that correction officers at the facility “visually raped and illegally strip searched” him on July 25, 2023, while using racial slurs and other comments. He also referred to confiscated legal mail, unsanitary living conditions, freedom of speech, and a speedy trial. He sought $126,000 in damages. The court had previously granted him permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Screening Standard

Because Goldson was a prisoner proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally valid claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also said it must read a self-represented complaint liberally, but the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims Against the Department of Correction and the City

The court said the Department of Correction, as a New York City agency, was not an entity that could be sued separately. Because Goldson was self-represented, the court treated his allegations against the Department as claims against New York City, which he also named as a defendant.

A city can be liable under Section 1983 only when the city itself caused the alleged constitutional violation through a policy, custom, or practice. The court found that Goldson alleged only one incident involving correction officers and did not allege facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the violation. The court therefore found that he failed to state a Section 1983 claim against New York City.

Claim Against the Warden

For an individual defendant to be liable under Section 1983, the complaint must allege that the person was directly and personally involved in violating the plaintiff’s rights. A person cannot be held liable merely because that person supervised an employee who allegedly acted improperly.

The court found that Goldson did not allege facts showing how the warden of the Eric M. Taylor Center was personally involved in the events. The court dismissed the claims against the warden for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Strip-Search Claims

The court recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects prisoners and people awaiting trial from unreasonable searches. It explained that a visual body-cavity search may be lawful when conducted under an appropriate jail policy and for a legitimate correctional reason, but searches involving intentional humiliation, abuse, or invasive touching may violate the Constitution.

The court found that Goldson had not provided enough facts to state a viable unconstitutional-strip-search claim. He did not explain why the search occurred, how it was conducted, whether it was a strip search or a visual body-cavity search, whether anyone touched him, or whether the search was intended to humiliate or abuse him. He also did not identify the individual correction officer who conducted the search. The court granted him permission to add facts about the search in an amended complaint.

Other Constitutional Claims

Goldson provided no supporting facts for his references to confiscated legal mail, unsanitary living conditions, freedom of speech, or a speedy trial. The court granted him permission to add facts supporting those claims as well.

State-Law Claims

The court deferred deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority over related state-law claims, because Goldson was being given an opportunity to amend his federal claims. It stated that it would address that issue later.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Goldson 60 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must include every fact and claim he wants the court to consider. He was directed to name the individuals involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. If he did not know a defendant’s name, he could use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe,” but the court warned that doing so would not stop the applicable three-year limitations period.

The order stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Goldson failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.