Morales v. Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 9, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-10126·Unknown

Opinion

ELECTRONICALLY FILEL DOC #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED:_2/9/2021 □□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JONATHON MORALES, Plaintiff, -against- 1:20-CV-10126 (VEC) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ORDER TO AMEND CYNTHIA BRANN; PATSY YANG; MARGARET EGAN, Defendants. VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Jonathon Morales, currently held in the Vernon C. Bain Center (“VCBC”), brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants are violating his federal constitutional rights by not protecting him from contracting COVID-19. Fifty VCBC prisoners, not including Plaintiff Morales, filed the original action that initiated the present action. The original action was assigned to Judge George B. Daniels and opened under docket number 1:20-CV-8407. Judge Daniels referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron, who severed claims of the original plaintiffs other than Plaintiff Michael Lee, and directed that the severed claims of the 49 other original plaintiffs be opened as 49 separate civil actions. See Lee v. Dept’ of Corrs., ECF 1:20-CV-8407, 7 (GBD) (SDA) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2020). Plaintiff Lee thereafter filed an amended complaint in the original action, and Plaintiff Morales — the plaintiff in this action — was mentioned as a plaintiff in the amended complaint. Magistrate Judge Aaron then severed the claims of those new plaintiffs who had been mentioned as plaintiffs in the amended complaint, including those of Plaintiff Morales, into additional separate civil actions. Lee, ECF 1:20-CV-8407, 19 (GBD) (SDA) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2020). This action is one of those additional severed civil actions.

By order dated February 8, 2021, the court granted Plaintiff Morales’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff Morales leave to file a second amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order. BACKGROUND

In Lee, 20-CV-8407, Plaintiff Michael Lee initially sought to bring a class action on behalf of himself and other VCBC detainees. The plaintiffs sued the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction, Cynthia Brann; “Health Director Commissioner” Patsy Yang; and Board of Correction Executive Director Margaret Egan. They also may have intended to sue the New York City Department of Correction (DOC). In the original complaint, the plaintiffs allegedthat they have been forced into unsafe living conditions, including by being housed in units without appropriate capacity limitations to allow for social distancing. ECF 1:20-CV-8407, 2 at 5. They also allegedthat prisoners are less than “3-4 inches” apart in sleeping areas and that 50 prisoners in one housing unit share toilets, sinks, and showers. (Id.)They further allegedthat certain detainees have contracted or been

exposed to COVID-19 as a result of these conditions. (Id.at 7.) They sought an improvement of conditions, including a reduction in housing capacity; monetary damages; and the release of detainees who meet certain criteria. (Id.at 7-8.) On November 24, 2020, Plaintiff Lee filed an amended complaint in Lee, 1:20-CV-8407, in which Plaintiff Morales is mentioned as a new plaintiff. ECF 1:20-CV-8407, 14. At Magistrate Judge Aaron’s direction, the claims of the new plaintiffs were severed from the original action

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). and opened as new separate civil actions; the amended complaint was docketed in each of the severed actions, including this one. ECF 1:20-CV-8407, 19; ECF 1:20-CV-10126, 2.The amended complaint provides fewer details than the original complaint and does not specify how thedefendants specifically violated any of the plaintiffs’constitutional rights. DISCUSSION

A. Department of Correction The original and the amended complaints include theDOC intheir captions. Whether Plaintiff Morales intended to sue this agency is unclear, but in any event, the claims against the DOC must be dismissed because an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued.N.Y. City Charter ch. 17, § 396 (“[A]ll actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law.”); Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Emerson v. City of New York, 740 F. Supp. 2d 385, 395(S.D.N.Y. 2010)(“[A] plaintiff is generally prohibited from suing a municipal agency.”). B. Remaining Defendants

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, PlaintiffMorales 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). If Plaintiff Morales was a pretrial detaineeat the time of the events giving rise to his claims,theclaims arise under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If he was a convicted prisoner, his claims arise under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535n.16 (1979); Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 29 (2d Cir. 2017). Regardless of whetherPlaintiff Morales was a pretrial detainee or convicted prisoner, he must satisfy two elements to state such a claim: (1) an “objective” element, which requires a showing that the challenged conditions are sufficiently serious, and (2)a “mental” element, which requires a showing that an officer acted with at least deliberate indifference to the challenged conditions. Darnell, 849 F.3d at 29-33.

The objective element of a deliberate indifference claim is the same for pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners –“the inmate must show that the conditions, either alone or in combination, pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his health” or safety, which “includes the risk of serious damage to ‘physical and mental soundness.’” Id.at 30 (quoting Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 125 (2d Cir. 2013), and LaReau v. MacDougall, 473 F.2d 974, 978 (2d Cir. 1972)); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994) (“A prison official’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment.”). “[P]rison officials violate the Constitution when they deprive an inmate of his basic human needs such as food, clothing, medical care, and safe and sanitary living conditions.”

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

Morales v. Department of Corrections, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Morales v. Department of Corrections (Morales v. Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
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)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Emerson v. City of New York
740 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Darnell v. City of New York
849 F.3d 17 (Second Circuit, 2017)
Jenkins v. City of New York
478 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2007)
LaReau v. MacDougall
473 F.2d 974 (Second Circuit, 1972)