Garrett v. Cummberbatch

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 22, 2023
Docket1:23-cv-02343
StatusUnknown

This text of Garrett v. Cummberbatch (Garrett v. Cummberbatch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Garrett v. Cummberbatch, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NICOLE GARRETT, Plaintiff, 23-CV-2343 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND KAREN CUMMBERBATCH, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the Rose M. Singer Center (“RMSC”) on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant Karen Cummberbatch, who is a social service counselor at RMSC, violated her federal constitution rights. By order dated March 21, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470

F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must

accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND The following allegations are taken from the complaint. In December 2022, Plaintiff’s “[l]egal [g]uardian, mother, [a]unt” passed away. (ECF 1, at 3.) Plaintiff spoke with Defendant, who is the social services counselor at RMSC. Plaintiff “filled out the proper paperwork . . . to attend the funeral services, or at least a Zoom.” (Id.) Defendant, however, “never submitted the paperwork.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s brother also called the social services department “many times [but] never received an answer.” (Id. at 5.) On the day of the funeral, “Ms. Malcomb2 brought [Plaintiff] a[n] obituary with a[n] apology that Ms. Cummberbatch did not submit the paperwork.” (Id.) Plaintiff does not list any injuries on the section of the complaint form asking her to

describe her injuries, but in the section of the form asking her to state the relief she is seeking, Plaintiff indicates that she is seeking $100,000 in compensatory damages for “mental anguish.” (Id.) DISCUSSION A. No independent constitutional right To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). To the extent Plaintiff is asserting a claim based on her inability to attend her relative’s funeral, she fails to state a claim because prisoners and pretrial detainees do not have a

constitutional right to attend the funeral of a relative. See, e.g., Verrone v. Jacobson, No. 95-CV- 10495, 1999 WL 163197, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (noting that “a prisoner does not have a protected right to attend the funeral of a relative”); Green v. Coughlin, No. 94-CV-3356, 1995 WL 498808, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 1995) (“Generally, prison inmates do not have a constitutionally protected right under § 1983 to attend a funeral . . . .”); Mercer v. Green Haven Corr. Fac., No. 94-CV-6238, 1998 WL 85734, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (“[A]n inmate

2 Plaintiff does not otherwise identify this individual. does not have a constitutional right to attend a family member’s funeral.”); Colon v. Sullivan, 681 F. Supp. 222, 223 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (“Denying a prisoner permission to attend the funeral of a relative does not involve the denial of a liberty interest protected by the Constitution.”) (citations omitted). B. Substantive due process

Even in the absence of an independent constitutional right to attend a relative’s funeral, Plaintiff may be able to assert a constitutional claim arising from alleged psychological harm that she experienced. See McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F. 3d 276, 280 (2d Cir. 1999) (in the context of a convicted prisoner, assuming without deciding, “that if, in order to cause a particular inmate psychological distress, prison officials deny the inmate leave which is otherwise available to attend a parent’s funeral, such conduct may in some circumstances constitute cruel and unusual punishment”). Plaintiff’s reference to the mental anguish caused by Defendant may be an attempt to assert a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The substantive component of the Due Process Clause protects the individual against “the exercise of power

without any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate governmental objective,” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845, 846 (1998).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Davidson v. Cannon
474 U.S. 344 (Supreme Court, 1986)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis
523 U.S. 833 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
McPherson v. Coombe
174 F.3d 276 (Second Circuit, 1999)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Ferran v. Town of Nassau
471 F.3d 363 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Colon v. Sullivan
681 F. Supp. 222 (S.D. New York, 1988)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Garrett v. Cummberbatch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrett-v-cummberbatch-nysd-2023.