Karelefsky v. Department of Corrections
1:20-cv-09485
S.D.N.Y.Mar 1, 2022Background:
- Plaintiff Matthew Karelefsky, incarcerated at Rikers Island, filed a pro se § 1983 action after being one of many detainees in an initial complaint about COVID-19–related unsafe conditions at the Vernon C. Bain Center.
- The multi-plaintiff complaint was severed; Karelefsky’s claims were docketed separately and he signed an amended complaint that lacked specifics about defendants’ roles.
- In his second amended complaint Karelefsky alleged inadequate mental-health and medical care (including denial of a CPAP), unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and improper restrictions on communications (blaming a state-court gag order and DOC personnel); he sought release and transfer to a psychiatric hospital.
- Named defendants included DOC Commissioner Cynthia Brann, Health Director Patsy Yang, Board of Correction Executive Director Margaret Egan, and the New York City Department of Correction (DOC).
- The Court held the DOC is not a suable entity, found no facts showing personal involvement by the named individuals (precluding supervisory liability), and ruled Younger abstention bars federal interference in the ongoing state criminal proceedings without a showing of bad faith or extraordinary circumstances.
- The second amended complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); plaintiff was granted leave to file a third amended complaint within 60 days with specific pleading instructions; IFP for appeal denied as not taken in good faith.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaints sufficiently plead individual defendants’ personal involvement | Karelefsky alleges denial of care and restrictions; names Brann, Yang, Egan and DOC | Defendants (and Court) note pleadings lack facts tying each individual to specific acts | Dismissed as to individuals for failure to plead personal involvement; must plead specific facts to hold officials liable |
| Whether DOC is a proper defendant | Plaintiff sues DOC as defendant responsible for conditions | DOC (and Court) asserts DOC is an agency not subject to suit under NYC Charter | DOC not a suable entity; claims against it dismissed |
| Whether federal court may intervene in pending state criminal proceedings (Younger) | Plaintiff seeks release and relief affecting ongoing state criminal matter | Defendants invoke Younger abstention to bar federal intrusion absent bad faith or extraordinary circumstances | Court declines to intervene under Younger; advises habeas ( §2254 ) after state remedies exhausted |
| Whether pleadings meet Rule 8/Twombly–Iqbal plausibility and screening under PLRA | Karelefsky contends allegations suffice to state constitutional violations | Court applies Twombly/Iqbal and PLRA screening (28 U.S.C. §1915A/§1915(e)) | Second amended complaint dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim; leave to replead with detailed instructions granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim under Rule 8)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts separate legal conclusions from factual allegations when assessing plausibility)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts ordinarily must abstain from interfering in pending state criminal proceedings)
- Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609 (2d Cir. 2020) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires pleading official’s own misconduct or personal involvement)
- Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636 (2d Cir. 2007) (screening and dismissal standards for prisoner complaints)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (pro se pleadings must be read liberally but still meet Rule 8)
- Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Diamond "D" Const. Corp. v. McGowan, 282 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2002) (Younger abstention elements)
- Dove v. Fordham Univ., 56 F. Supp. 2d 330 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (naming a defendant in the caption without alleging how they violated rights is insufficient)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (standard for good faith in seeking in forma pauperis appellate review)
