Connor v. Brann (2018)

Our plain-English summary of Connor v. Brann (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, October 5, 2018).

Quavon Connor, a pro se plaintiff held at the Eric M. Taylor Center on Rikers Island, sued the Department of Correction commissioner, the warden, a deputy warden and a captain under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that asbestos was found in his housing area and that officials did not move him, leaving him at higher risk of mesothelioma, tonsillitis and lung cancer. He sought money damages and an order closing the housing area. He did not allege that he had any present illness. The defendants moved to dismiss, and Connor did not respond. The court granted the motion. It held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act bars his claims for pain and suffering and emotional distress, because he alleged no physical injury, only a future risk. The punitive damages claim failed because the complaint did not allege that any defendant was personally involved. The request for an order closing the area was moot because Connor had been moved to another prison. The court gave him until November 5, 2018 to propose an amended complaint, failing which the case would be closed.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
• Decided: October 5, 2018
• Docket: No. 17 Civ. 9560 (LGS)
• Stage: Motion to dismiss
• State: New York

Outcome. The court granted the New York City Department of Correction officials' motion to dismiss the pro se prisoner's asbestos-exposure claims, and allowed him until November 5, 2018 to file a proposed amended complaint.

What the court held. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner cannot recover for mental or emotional injury without a prior showing of physical injury. A § 1983 plaintiff must plead each defendant's personal involvement to hold that defendant individually liable. A prisoner's transfer out of the facility generally moots claims for injunctive relief.

Issues decided: Fear of Cancer and Medical Monitoring, Punitive Damages.

The people and their exposure

• Quavon Connor

The defendants

• Cynthia Brann, Commissioner of the New York Department of Correction (government)
• Kisa Smalls, Warden of EMTC (government)
• Deputy Bailey, Deputy Warden of Security (government)
• Captain Skupien, 7 Lower Housing Area Supervisor (government)

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

QUAVON CONNOR, Plaintiff,

v.

N.Y.C. D.O.C. COMM. CYNTHIA BRANN, etal., Defendants.

No. 17 Civ. 9560 (LGS).

October 5, 2018.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Quavon Connor, Plaintiff, pro se.

N.Y.C. D.O.C. Comm. Cynthia Brann, Defendant, represented by David Sumner Thayer, New York City Law Department & Neil Anthony Giovanatti, New York City Law Department.

Kisa Smalls, EMTC Warden, Deputy Bailey, Deputy Warden of Security & Captain Skupien, 7 Lower Housing Area Supervisor, Defendants, represented by David Sumner Thayer, New York City Law Department.

OPINION AND ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in connection with allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Eric M. Taylor Center ("EMTC") on Rikers Island, residing in the 7 Lower housing area;

WHEREAS, the Complaint alleges as follows: while Plaintiff was incarcerated at EMTC, asbestos was discovered in the 7 Lower housing area. After this discovery, Defendants failed to relocate Plaintiff to a different housing area. As a result of Defendants' failure to relocate Plaintiff, Plaintiff is at an elevated risk of developing asbestos-related conditions such as mesothelioma, tonsillitis, and lung cancer. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief.

WHEREAS, Defendants are Cynthia Brann, the Commissioner of the New York Department of Correction; Kisa Smalls, the Warden of EMTC; Deputy Bailey, Deputy Warden of Security; and Captain Skupien, 7 Lower Housing Area Supervisor. The Complaint rests liability on their "responsib[ility] for my care, custody, and control. . . and responsibility to provide safe living conditions."

WHEREAS, on July 9, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "all factual allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and all inferences are drawn in the plaintiff's favor." Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297, 306 (2d Cir. 2015).

WHEREAS, a document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint is held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir. 2015). Where a plaintiff litigates pro se, "we read his papers liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Gerstenbluth v. Credit Suisse Secs. (USA) LLC, 728 F.3d 139, 142 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants' motion, "the sufficiency of a complaint is a matter of law that the court is capable of determining based on its own reading of the pleading and knowledge of the law." McCall v. Pataki, 232 F.3d 321, 322-23 (2d Cir. 2000); accord Roy v. Law Offices of B. Alan Seidler, P.C., 284 F. Supp. 3d 454, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).

WHEREAS, the Complaint does not specify the precise cause of action it asserts, but reading the Complaint to raise the strongest arguments it suggests, it is best interpreted as raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to succeed on a claim under § 1983, "a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant was a state actor, i.e., acting under color of state law, when he committed the violation and (2) the defendant deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961, 964 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

WHEREAS, Plaintiff claims that in failing to take action in response to the discovery of asbestos, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff seeks (1) pain and suffering damages of $25,000 from each of the four defendants, (2) emotional stress and mental anguish damages of $25,000 from each of the four defendants, (3) punitive damages of $50,000 from each of the four defendants and (4) "the immediate closing and evacuation of all inmates."

For the reasons stated below, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

Plaintiff's claims for "pain and suffering damages" and "emotional stress and mental anguish damages" are barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, under which "[n]o Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner. . . for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The Complaint fails to allege any physical injury associated with Plaintiff's asbestos exposure; indeed, the "Injuries" section of the Complaint states only that Plaintiff suffers from the future risk of developing asbestos-related illnesses.

Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is also barred. Plaintiff seeks to impose liability on Defendants in their individual capacities, i.e., impose personal or individual liability on each Defendant. See Patterson v. County of Oneida, N.Y., 375 F.3d 206, 229 (2d Cir. 2004) (explaining liability in "individual capacity"). But a § 1983 plaintiff must plead "a given defendant's personal involvement in the claimed violation in order to hold that defendant liable in his individual capacity." Warren v. Pataki, 823 F.3d 125, 136 (2d Cir 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Complaint, which alleges only that Defendants had a responsibility to provide for Plaintiff's safe living conditions, is insufficient. The Complaint fails to allege the personal involvement of any Defendant as required to plead a sufficient claim.

Finally, Plaintiff's claim for equitable relief is moot. "In this circuit, an inmate's transfer from a prison facility generally moots claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against officials of that facility." Shepherd v. Goord, 662 F.3d 603, 610 (2d Cir. 2011). Since the commencement of this action, Plaintiff has been transferred out of EMTC and is currently incarcerated at the Greene Correctional Facility in Coxsackie, New York.

* * * *

For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Should Plaintiff wish to attempt to correct his deficient pleading and allege facts showing the personal knowledge and involvement of any Defendant, he shall do so by filing a Proposed Amended Complaint no later than November 5, 2018, which the Court will construe as a motion to file an amended complaint. If he does not do so, the case will be closed.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket Number 25, enter judgment in favor of Defendants, close the case and mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to pro se Plaintiff.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• New York asbestos laws
• New York asbestos exposure sites