Monroe v. County of Rockland

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 5, 2021·No. 7:21-cv-02472·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHAEL J. MONROE, Plaintiff, 21-CV-2472 (CM) -against- ORDER TO AMEND COUNTY OF ROCKLAND; CORRECTION OFFICER JOHN DOE, Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently detained at Rockland County Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff sues Rockland County and John Doe, alleging that they failed to protect him from assault by another inmate. By order dated April 2, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty 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 in forma pauperis 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

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 636, 639 (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. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Michael Monroe alleges the following facts in his complaint: Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee in Rockland County Correctional Facility. On October 8, 2020, Plaintiff was in the “IV room” in the C-Wing Housing Unit, which he describes as a “secure room where the vending machine and kiosk are located.” (ECF 2 at 4.) A sign on the door of the IV room states

that only two inmates are allowed in at one time, and a correction officer must unlock the IV room door from the control room. Plaintiff was in the IV room with another inmate, when the door opened and a third inmate entered. Plaintiff stood up, intending to leave the room, but the inmate “brutal[l]y assaulted” Plaintiff by punching him in the eye and slapping him hard on the left side of his head. Plaintiff suffered a blood clot in his eye and a perforated eardrum, which bled for three days. Medical personnel treated Plaintiff’s injuries with ice packs and pain medication. (Id. at 6.) They were extremely concerned about Plaintiff’s injuries and wanted to send him to Nyack Hospital, but Plaintiff refused due to fear of exposure to Covid-19. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff continues to suffer blurred vision, hearing loss, and “ear pains.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts federal claims under § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights, and brings state law claims. He seeks $500,000 in damages.

DISCUSSION A. Failure to Protect Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from assault. A pretrial detainee’s claim of deliberate indifference to his safety arises under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979); Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 29, 33 n.9 (2d Cir. 2017). To state such a claim, a prisoner must satisfy two elements: (1) an “objective” element, which requires a showing that the challenged conditions of confinement are sufficiently serious, and (2) a “mental” element, which requires a showing that defendant acted with at least deliberate indifference to those conditions. Darnell, 849 F.3d at 29, 33 n.9. To satisfy the objective element, a prisoner must plead facts that “show that the

conditions, either alone or in combination, pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his health” or safety. Id. at 30 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To satisfy the mental element, a pretrial detainee must allege facts showing that a jail official “acted intentionally to impose the alleged condition, or recklessly failed to act with reasonable care to mitigate the risk that the condition posed to the pretrial detainee even though the defendant-official knew, or should have known, that the condition posed an excessive risk to health or safety.” Id. at 35. The negligence of a jail official is not a basis for a § 1983 claim for a constitutional violation. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 335-36 (1986); Darnell, 849 F.3d at 36 (“[A]ny § 1983 claim for a violation of due process requires proof of a mens rea greater than mere negligence.”). Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to state a § 1983 claim for defendants’ failure to protect him from another prisoner’s attack. First, as to the objective element, where a claim is based on the defendants’ failure to prevent harm, the plaintiff must plead and eventually prove that he is “incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.” Wilson v.

Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Plaintiff’s allegations that prison rules permitted only two prisoners in the “IV room” but three were admitted, without more, are insufficient to plead that he faced an objectively serious risk of harm. Moreover, as to the mental element of a deliberate indifference claim, nothing in the complaint suggests that Correction Officer John Doe or anyone else “knew, or should have known,” Darnell, 849 F.3d at 35, that the other prisoner posed an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health or safety when he opened the door to the IV room. Plaintiff thus fails to state a § 1983 claim on which relief can be granted for deliberate indifference to a risk to him of serious harm. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to allege facts showing that he faced an objectively serious risk of harm and that defendants

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

Monroe v. County of Rockland, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Monroe v. County of Rockland (Monroe v. County of Rockland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Wilson v. Seiter
501 U.S. 294 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Cash v. County of Erie
654 F.3d 324 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Darnell v. City of New York
849 F.3d 17 (Second Circuit, 2017)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Connick v. Thompson
179 L. Ed. 2d 417 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Jones v. Town of East Haven
691 F.3d 72 (First Circuit, 2012)