“the Constitution does not guarantee due care on the part of state officials; liability for negligently inflicted harm is categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process”
How later courts described this case
- “the Constitution does not guarantee due care on the part of state officials; liability for negligently inflicted harm is categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
LEONARD SUMPTER,
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER
-against- 25-CV-517 (LDH) (AYS)
YAPHANK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
LaSHANN DeARCY HALL, United States District Judge:
On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff Leonard Sumpter, currently incarcerated at the Suffolk
County Correctional Center, filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl.,
ECF No. 1.) The Court grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a). (IFP App., ECF No. 2.) For the reasons stated below, the complaint is
dismissed.
However, Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and
Order to file an amended complaint.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that while detained at the Yaphank Correctional Facility on or about late
November 2024, he contracted a fungus infection on his feet from the “unsanitary conditions” at
that facility, in particular, the shower area. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff further alleges
that “it hurts when I walk” and “turned my nails brown and rotten.” (Id.) He seeks damages for
pain and suffering, mental and physical anguish, and negligence “due to unsanitary conditions in
the jail[.]” (Id. at 5.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Matson v. Bd. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of N.Y., 631 F.3d 57, 63
(2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Although all allegations contained in the
complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678. Moreover, where a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his pleadings “must be construed
liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Nevertheless, the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires district courts to screen civil
complaints brought by prisoners against a governmental entity and dismiss them if they are
“frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1). Additionally, a district court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action if the
complaint “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or
“seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
(i)-(iii).
DISCUSSION
This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which provides, in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of
Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . ..
42 U.S.C. § 1983. This statute “provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere
conferred,’ including under the Constitution.” Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2010)
(internal citation omitted). In order to maintain a Section 1983 action, a plaintiff must show that
the defendant acted under color of state law to deprive the plaintiff of a right arising under the
Constitution or federal law. Id. at 127.
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed on numerous grounds. As a matter of procedure,
Plaintiff cannot bring a complaint against Yaphank Correctional Facility because a jail does not
have an “independent legal identity.” See Oliver v Yaphank Correctional Facility, No. 20-cv-
1877, 2020 WL 2214100, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) (dismissing pro se complaint against
Yaphank Correctional Facility); Hawkins v. Nassau Cty. Corr. Facility, 781 F. Supp. 2d 107,
109, n.1 (E.D.N.Y. 2011). As a substantive matter, Plaintiff’s claims of negligence are also
dismissed. Allegations of negligence by prison officials do not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation under the Eighth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment. See County
of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 849 (1998) (“the Constitution does not guarantee due care
on the part of state officials; liability for negligently inflicted harm is categorically beneath the
threshold of constitutional due process”); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836 (1994) (Eighth
Amendment); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986) (Fourteenth Amendment).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against Yaphank Correctional Facility are dismissed for failure to
state a claim. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b); 1915(e)(2)(B).
LEAVE TO AMEND
In light of the Court’s duty to liberally construe pro se complaints, Plaintiff is given thirty
days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint. In the amended complaint,
Plaintiff must identify the individuals he believes to have been personally responsible for the
alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights. See Farid v. Ellen, 593 F.3d 293, 249 (2d Cir.
2010) (personal involvement of each defendant in the alleged constitutional deprivation is
required to proceed under § 1983).
The amended complaint must comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which requires a short, plain statement of the facts supporting Plaintiff’s claims.
Plaintiff must identify the defendants in both the caption and the body of the amended complaint.
For each defendant that Plaintiff names in the caption of the amended complaint, he must include
a brief description of what each defendant did or failed to do and how each defendant’s act or
omission caused him injury, along with the date and location of each relevant event. If plaintiff
does not know the name of an individual defendant, he should identify them as John or Jane Doe,
where they are employed, and, to the best of his ability, provide a physical description.
The amended complaint shall replace the original complaint. That is, the amended
complaint must stand on its own without reference to the original complaint. The amended
complaint must be captioned as an “Amended Complaint” and bear the same docket number as
this Order: 25-CV-517 (LDH) (AYS).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is dismissed for failure to
state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B), and for failure to conform
with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days from the
entry date of this Order as set forth above. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within
30 days or fails to show good cause why he cannot file within the time allowed, the Clerk of
Court shall be directed to enter judgment and close this case. All further proceedings shall be
stayed for 30 days. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it shall be reviewed for substantive
sufficiency pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this
Memorandum & Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is
denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45
(1962).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum & Order
and a prisoner’s civil rights complaint form to the Plaintiff and note the mailing on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York /s/ LDH
April 24, 2025 LASHANN DEARCY HALL
United States District Judge