Van Hoven v. City of N.Y., 16cv2080 (GBD) (DF)

• Decision Date: 21 August 2018
• Docket Number: 16cv2080 (GBD) (DF)
• Parties: BLAS VAN HOVEN, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

BLAS VAN HOVEN, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

16cv2080 (GBD) (DF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

August 21, 2018

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE GEORGE B. DANIELS, U.S.D.J.:

In this action, pro se plaintiff Blas Van Hoven "(Plaintiff") asserts claims against defendants The City of New York (the "City") and the Anna M. Kross Center (the "AMKC"), a facility on Rikers Island (collectively, "Defendants")¹ under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on alleged deprivations of Plaintiff's constitutional due-process rights during his detention at the AMKC in November of 2015. Specifically, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, liberally construed, alleges that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his health and safety by subjecting him to unsanitary conditions of confinement and denying him adequate medical care.

Currently before this Court for a report and recommendation is a motion by Defendants to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground that, despite having been afforded an opportunity to remedy the defectsin his initial pleading, Plaintiff has still failed to plead facts adequate to state a constitutional claim. For the reasons discussed herein, I recommend that Defendants' motion (Dkt. 14) be granted in part, and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background²

1. Alleged Unsanitary Conditions

Plaintiff alleges that, from November 1 to November 4, 2015, a period of four days,³ he was held for processing in an intake cell at the AMKC that he essentially describes as so unsanitary and overcrowded that it caused a serious risk to his health and safety. (Am. Compl., at 4.) In particular, Plaintiff complains that, as a pretrial detainee, he was subjected to the following conditions:

a. Unusable Toilets, with Feces and Urine on the Floor

According to Plaintiff, there were no working toilets in the intake cell for the duration of his detention there. (Id.; see also Pl. Opp. Ltr., at 3⁴ (describing "no working toilets with urine and feces unable to flush").) In statements made to this Court on the record in opposition to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff not only reiterated this allegation (see 1/25/18 Tr., at 11 (stating that there was "feces left in the toilet without being flushed because it couldn't be flushed")), but added that the detainees in the cell "would have to take our shoe off and shove it in to see if it flushes again" (id., at 10).

Moreover, while it is unclear from Plaintiff's allegations whether any of the non-working toilets overflowed onto the floor (see Pl. Opp. Decl., at 3 (describing toilets as "back[ed] up"); 1/25/18 Tr., at 10 (same)), or if some detainees actually defecated or urinated on the floor as a result of the lack of working toilets, his Amended Complaint pleads more than non-functional toilets - he pleads that the floor of the cell itself "was covered with feces and urine" (Am. Compl., at 4), causing him to experience "non-stop vomiting" (id., at 5).

b. Old Food on the Floor and Cockroach Infestation

In describing the floor of the intake cell, Plaintiff also alleges that it was "spread" with "old food" (id., at 4; see also Pl. Opp. Ltr., at 4 (describing floor as having "garbage and food left for days)), and that there was an "infestation of roaches" in the cell (Am. Compl., at 5; see also Pl. Opp. Ltr., at 4). In his opposition papers, Plaintiff further states that "food [was] pushed in through the cell door [in] disposable trays [and] left for the roaches." (Pl. Opp. Decl., at 3.)

c. Cell Overcrowding, Resulting in the Need To Sit or Sleep on the Contaminated Floor

Plaintiff alleges that the AMKC intake cell was "standing room only," with "no seats available," due to the number of detainees placed in the same area, at the same time. (Am. Compl., at 4.) In his opposition letter, Plaintiff describes this cell as approximately 15 feet by 15 feet, and asserts that about 40 people had been placed in the cell. (Pl. Opp. Ltr., at 3-4; see also Am. Compl., at 4 (suggesting that about 40 to 50 detainees were held there).) He also alleges that he "was so weak" that he "was not able to stand at times" (id., at 5), and that, despite the feces, urine, old food, and roaches on the floor, his only option besides standing was to "sit and sleep on the floor" (id., at 4). In his opposition to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff clarifies that, "because [he] could not stand anymore," and because there was "no room in the overpopulated small intake cell," he had to take a "position . . . crouched on [his] knees." (Pl. Opp. Decl., at 3.)⁵

d. No Running Water, Inadequate Drinking Water, and No Shower Facilities

Plaintiff also alleges a lack of water in the intake cell for drinking or washing. He alleges that the sink in the cell did not function, such that there was no running water in the cell. (Am. Compl., at 4; Pl. Opp. Ltr., at 3 (stating that there was "no working [s]ink for water"); 1/25/18 Tr., at 10 (stating that water "didn't come out of the sink" and that "[t]he sink was filled with food").) Although his allegations do suggest that detainees were provided with some water todrink, he alleges that they were only given "one drinking cup to share ([among] 40-50 inmates)" (Am. Compl., at 4; see also Pl. Opp. Ltr., at 3 (stating that "about 40 inmates" had "to share one cup")), that he was not able to drink from that cup, as it was not sanitary (Am. Compl., at 5), and that he became dehydrated (id., at 4, 5). Plaintiff further alleges that he was not provided access to a shower for the duration of his detention. (Id., at 4; Pl. Opp. Decl., at 3; see also 1/25/18 Tr., at 11 ("I asked to use the shower at least so I could get some water and still they denied me a shower")).⁶

2. Alleged Complaints About the Conditions in the Cell

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he "verbally" brought the unsanitary and unsafe conditions of the intake cell to the attention of whatever officers "were available or present" in the facility, but, despite his "many repeated" complaints, "nothing was done" and no "substitute[e] arrangements were made" for his detention. (Id., at 4.) On the record before this Court, Plaintiff explained that he "wasn't ever able to get the[] name[s]" of the officers because their "name tags [were] covered." (See 1/25/18 tr., at 9 (stating that officers were "hiding their name tag[s]"); id. ("When I asked, What is your name so I could write it down, they just kept walking and ignoring me").) Nonetheless, without being able to provide the officers' names, Plaintiff told this Court:

I would ask them please just look at my complaints about the toilet[] not working, about me being dehydrated, not having to shower for three or four days from November 1st to November 4th, telling them I take psych[] medication[,] and they just completely ignored me.

(id., at 9; see also id., at 11 (stating that his complaints "fell on deaf ears").)

Plaintiff informed the Court that he "asked for help from every person that passed by" (5/23/18 Tr., at 5), including captains on different shifts (see id., at 4). He also indicated that the other detainees in the cell also "plead[ed]" to reduce their time in the sordid conditions. (See 1/25/18 Tr., at 10-11 ("We would plead with them and tell each officer or captain that passed by, Can you please speed up the process. Please, speed up the process."); Pl. Opp. Ltr., at 3 (Plaintiff stating that he was held in the cell "for a period of days[,] with all staff ignoring [the detainees'] plea[]s to speed up the process")).⁷

3. Alleged Injury From the Claimed Conditions

Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of having been held in the conditions described above, he developed a number of physical symptoms. In addition to the vomiting, weakness, and dehydration noted above, he alleges that he "lost a lot of weight" and suffered from body aches, stomach pain, physical fatigue, and "severe heada[ch]e pain." (Am. Compl., at 4.)

In addition, Plaintiff alleges that the conditions in which he was held caused him mental harm - giving him "awful memories," making him feel threatened and "paranoid" to have people around him in an "enclosed area," and either impacting on existing psychiatric disorders or resulting in the development of new psychiatric conditions. (See id. (Plaintiff alleging that he "ha[s] P.T.S.D." (without clarity as to when he developed the condition), and that the experience in the AMKC cell "added to [his] severe depression").) Plaintiff also alleges that he has beenissued psychiatric medications "due to these situations." (Id., at 5; see also 1/25/18 Tr., at 10 ("During that time I didn't see medical and I did let them know that I was taking medication for a previous diagnosis. After this incident, symptoms were added. I had to change medication.").

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed his original pro se Complaint in this action on November 28, 2015,⁸ naming as defendants the City and Maxsolaine Mingo ("Mingo"), as Warden of the AMKC. (See Compl.) On December 1, 2016, the Honorable George B. Daniels, U.S.D.J., ordered Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to correct certain deficiencies. (See Order To Amend, dated Dec. 1, 2016 ("Order to Amend") (Dkt. 6).) Specifically, with respect to any claims that Plaintiff wished to maintain against the City, that Order granted Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint to "allege . . . facts showing that a City of New York policy, custom, or practice . . . caused violations of his constitutional rights, or that the City of New York has been deliberately indifferent to such violations." (Id., at 4.) With respect to any claims that Plaintiff wished to assert against any individuals, the Order granted Plaintiff leave to amend to "name as defendants those individual AMKC officials who were personally involved in the alleged violations of his federally protected rights and to allege facts showing their personal...