Evans v. Demarco
Filing
6
ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED that plaintiffs claims against DeMarco are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A for failure to state a claim unless the plaintiff file s an Amended Complaint alleging the personal involvement of DeMarco in the alleged constitutional deprivations within thirty (30) days from the date this Order is served upon him, and it is further, ORDERED that plaintiffs deliberate indifference cla ims are sua sponte dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, for failure to state a claim unless the plaintiff files an Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order within thirty (30) days from the date this Order is served upon him. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. CM to pro se plaintiff on 12/7/2011. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 12/6/2011. (Glueckert, Lisa)
f' LED
IN CL ~ RK'S OFrtCE
U.S. DIST!J!CT COU~1 E.D.N.Y.
,.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________________________ )(
*
DEC o6 2011 i
*
LONG iSLAND OFFICE
EDWARD L. EVANS,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
11-CV-5666 (SJF)(ETB)
-againstSUFFOLK COUNTY SHERIFF VINCENT
F. DEMARCO,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------)(
FEUERSTEIN, District Judge:
I.
Introduction
On November 17, 2011, incarcerated prose plaintiff Edward L. Evans ("plaintiff') filed a
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Suffolk County Sheriff Vincent F. DeMarco
("defendant"), along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review of
plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that plaintiff's financial
status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee. Accordingly,
the application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1915. However,
for the reasons that follow, the complaint is sua sponte dismissed with leave to file an amended
complaint within thirty (30) days, as discussed below.
II.
The Complaint
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility, filed a brief handwritten
complaint on the Court's civil rights complaint form. Plaintiff claims:
We are subjected to unsafe living conditions, (1) Black
mold all over the ventilation systems, (internal as well as
external.) It leaks with rain water, that's attached with
condensation and completely rusted water & vents. (2)
Rusted water, faucets that has green [algae] growing under
its clear knots. . . Poor shower drainage to the point where
the shower regurgitates the sewage while showering. (3)
Extreamely cold, subpar heating. (4) Rats & mice, spiders
infestations. (5) meals not meeting dietary standers, being
served cold. Not proper footwear and the medical and
dental evaluations aren't being met in a timely matter!!!
Compl.
at~
IV (All spelling and grammatical errors appear in original complaint and are
included here without notation). Plaintiff has left blank the section of the complaint form that
calls for a description of any claimed injuries, any required medical treatment, and whether such
medical treatment was received. Id.
at~
IV.A. Notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff did not
allege any injury, he is seeking five hundred million ($500,000,000.00) dollars in monetary
damages. Id.
at~
V. Further, plaintiff requests:
Injuncture relief, removal of black mold, fix leaks. Allow
us to wear personal shoes, fix back up toilets & urnals
fawcets, shower drains issues. Test water in accordence to
Code. (2) Extra blankets exterminate the spiders rats
increase portion of meals, have heated meals including hot
breakfast meals, direct facility personell not to threaten or
transfere any plantiffs as a retaliaition for this action.
Id. (All spelling and grammatical errors appear in original complaint and are included here
without notation).
2
III.
Discussion
A.
In Forma Pauperis Application
Upon review of the plaintiffs application, this Court finds that plaintiffs financial status
qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)( 1). Accordingly, plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
B.
Application of28 U.S.C. § 1915
Pursuant to Section 1915 of Title 28, a district court must dismiss an in forma pauperis
complaint upon determining that the action is "(1) frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480
F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).
Courts are required to liberally construe pleadings drafted by a pro~ plaintiff. Sealed
Plaintiffv. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008); McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357
F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004). A "prose complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted); Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). Moreover, at the pleadings stage of the
proceeding, the Court must assume the truth of"all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual
allegations" in the complaint. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 124 (2d Cir.
2010); see also Jackson v. Birmingham Board ofEducation, 544 U.S. 167, 171, 125 S. Ct. 1497,
3
161 L. Ed.2d 361 (2005). However, a complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to
reliefthat is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.
Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed.2d 929 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
1953, 173 L. Ed.2d (2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citations omitted). While "detailed factual
allegations" are not required, the federal pleading standard requires "more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127
S. Ct. at 1955). If a liberal reading of the complaint "gives any indication that a valid claim
might be stated," the Court must grant leave to amend the complaint. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu,
222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).
C. Section 1983
Section 1983 provides that:
[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ...
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the
party injured ....
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). For a plaintiffto state a Section 1983 claim, the complaint must allege
that the challenged conduct was "committed by a person acting under color of state law," and
that the conduct "deprived [a plaintiff] of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution or laws ofthe United States." Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2010)
4
cert. denied sub nom Cornejo v. Monn, _U.S._, 131 S. Ct. 158, 178 L. Ed.2d 243 (2010)
(quoting Pitchell v. Callan, 13 F.3d 545,547 (2d Cir. 1994)). "Section 1983 itself creates no
substantive rights; it provides only a procedure for redress for the deprivation of rights
established elsewhere." Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir. 1993).
1.
Claims Against Suffolk County Sheriff Vincent DeMarco
In order to state a claim for relief under Section 1983 against an individual defendant, a
plaintiff must allege the personal involvement ofthe defendant in the alleged constitutional
deprivation. Farid v. Ellen, 593 F.3d 233,249 (2d Cir. 2010). The Supreme Court held in
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,129 S. Ct. at 1948, that "[b]ecause vicarious liability is inapplicable to ...
[section] 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the
official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution." Id. Thus, a plaintiff asserting a
Section 1983 claim against a supervisory official in his individual capacity must sufficiently
plead that the supervisor was personally involved in the constitutional deprivation. Rivera v.
Fischer, 655 F. Supp. 2d 235, 237 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). A complaint based upon a violation under
Section 1983 that does not allege the personal involvement of a defendant fails as a matter of
law. See Costello v. City ofBurlington, 632 F.3d 41, 48-49 (2d Cir. 2011); Johnson v. Barney,
360 F. Appx. 199 (2d Cir. Jan. 12, 2010).
Here, plaintiff has not alleged the direct participation of defendant DeMarco in any of the
wrongdoing alleged in the Complaint or any basis upon which to find him liable in a supervisory
capacity. Accordingly, plaintiffs claims against DeMarco are not plausible and are dismissed in
their entirety with prejudice unless plaintiff files an amended complaint alleging the personal
5
involvement of DeMarco in the alleged constitutional deprivations within thirty (30) days
from the date this Order is served upon him.
2.
Challenge to the Conditions of Confinement
Reading plaintiffs complaint liberally, it appears that plaintiff seeks to allege a deliberate
indifference claim challenging the conditions of his confinement at the Suffolk County
Correctional Facility. Plaintiff does not cite to a particular section of the Constitution that he
claims has been violated, nor does he allege whether he has been convicted of any criminal
charges. Although the Eighth Amendment does not technically apply to a pretrial detainee in the
context of a deliberate indifference claim, the standard of review for a Fourteenth Amendment
Due Process claim for a pretrial detainee is the same as that for an Eighth Amendment claim in
the case of a convicted prisoner. Caiozzo v. Koreman, 581 F.3d 63, 70-72 (2d Cir. 2009); ~
also Phipps v. DeMarco, No. 11-CV-3717(JS)(ARL), 2011 WL 3667755 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 19,
2011).
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of"cruel and unusual punishment," U.S.
Const. Amend. VIII, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause makes it applicable to
the states. Trammell v. Keane, 338 F.3d 155, 161 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing Robinson v. Cal., 370
U.S. 660, 666-67, 82 S. Ct. 1417, 8 L. Ed. 2d 758 (1962)). Although it is clear that the Eighth
Amendment "does not mandate comfortable prisons," it does not permit inhumane treatment of
those in custody. Gaston v. Coughlin, 249 F.3d 156, 164 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1976, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994) and Rhodes v.
Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349, 101 S. Ct. 2392, 2400, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1981)).
6
Claims of poor confinement conditions can be the basis for an Eighth Amendment claim,
if such conditions result '"in unquestioned and serious deprivations of basic human needs"'
Anderson v. Coughlin, 757 F.2d 33, 35 (2d Cir. 1985) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.
Ct. at 2399). But, like other Eighth Amendment claims, a plaintiff must also plead facts
reflecting that such conditions were imposed with "deliberate indifference." Wilson v. Seiter,
501 U.S. 294,297, 111 S. Ct. 2321,2323, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1991).
Here, although plaintiff complains generally about the conditions at the Suffolk County
Correctional Facility, the allegations do not rise to the level of serious deprivation of human
need, see Anderson, 757 F.2d at 35, and plaintiff does not allege any personal injuries resulting
therefrom. Compl. at ~ IV .A. Even if the Court were to liberally construe the allegations in the
Complaint as rising to the level of a serious deprivation of human need, plaintiff has failed to
allege that any of these conditions were imposed with the requisite deliberate indifference.
Accordingly, the Complaint fails to allege a plausible deliberate indifference claim and, for the
reasons set forth above, it is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (b)(l).
However, because a district court should not dismiss a prose complaint without granting
leave to amend at least once "when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a
valid claim might be stated," Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010), plaintiff is
granted leave to amend his Complaint. Plaintiff is warned that the Complaint will be dismissed
with prejudice unless he files an Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date that
this Order is served upon him.
7
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby:
ORDERED that plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and it is
further,
ORDERED that plaintiffs claims against DeMarco are dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A for failure to state a claim unless the plaintiff files an
Amended Complaint alleging the personal involvement of DeMarco in the alleged
constitutional deprivations within thirty (30) days from the date this Order is served upon
him, and it is further,
ORDERED that plaintiffs deliberate indifference claims are sua sponte dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, for failure to state a claim unless the
plaintiff files an Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order within thirty (30) days
from the date this Order is served upon him.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose
of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed.2d
21(1962).
8
SO ORDERED.
15(/~).J~-
1 Sandra J. Ft6/erstein
United States District Judge
Dated:
December 6, 2011
Central Islip, New York
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?