Pro se inmate wins appeal against Riker's Island

This inmate brought a Section 1983 claim against Rikers Island over unconstitutional conditions and treatment. The trial court threw out the case. The Court of Appeals brings it back.

The case is Valdiviezo v. Boyer, a summary order issued on October 18. Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee, so he had not yet been convicted. That means his claim is analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment and not the Eighth Amendment, which gives the jailers greater leeway in handling and treating inmates. A recent leading case on the Fourth/Eighth Amendment distinction is Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2017) (which I helped to brief). Plaintiff brings various claims, some of which may proceed to discovery on this motion to dismiss.

First, Plaintiff says the bathroom conditions at Rikers were so disgusting as to violate constitutional standards, and that the City did not correct this for 18 months despite inmate grievances. That response may be "so patently inadequate to the task" that it "may amount to deliberate indifference" under the Constitution. Here is what Plaintiff alleges (taken from the district court ruling):

Valdiviezo alleges that the "showers were used as urinals and smelled of urine" because the prison refused to add a restroom to the housing unit. He also alleges that shower tiles were cracked and missing (therefore increasing the risk that an inmate would cut himself and get an infection), that the walls, ceiling, pipes, and paint in the showers were corroded, that "water worms were found in the showers on multiple occasions," and that there were no shower pads or mats. Valdiviezo alleges that several complaints and grievances were filed regarding these conditions and that "on [a] few occasions" state officials inspected the showers, but that nothing happened as a result. According to Valdiviezo, these unsanitary conditions persisted for at least eighteen months.

Valdiviezo also alleges that he was exposed to human waste. According to Valdiviezo,
on both December 31, 2014 and January 19, 2015, his cell block flooded with "sewage," "human waste," "feces," and "polluted water." He further alleges that prison officials refused to move him or allow him to clean his cell. As a result, Valdiviezo was forced to "live in [these] squalor and unsanitary conditions" for an unspecified period of time. As with the shower conditions, Valdiviezo alleges that several grievances were filed to no avail.

OK, so that was disgusting. The facts in Darnell were similar. The Court of Appeals (Katzmann, Lohier and Stanceu [Court of Int'l Trade]) says these allegations state a claim. On remand, Plaintiff has to prove that "the City's response was 'patently inadequate to the task." 

Plaintiff also claims he had a medical emergency in the shower, and that jail officials told detainees to carry Plaintiff out of the shower, causing him to be dropped twice. Yes, detainees had to carry Plaintiff out of the shower. The district court said Plaintiff did not plead a claim under the Eighth Amendment. But the Second Circuit says this is really a Fourteenth Amendment claim because Plaintiff was still only a detainee. Under the Darnell standard, we got ourselves a ballgame. The Court of Appeals says:

The medical staff’s decision to permit detainees, who were likely untrained, to carry a man complaining of a neck and back injury could constitute inadequate care, as it could have resulted in more serious injury. And Valdiviezo alleged that his injuries were exacerbated as a result of the two drops; after the first fall, he was in more pain, and he lost consciousness after the second fall. . . . after Valdiviezo was dropped once, causing him to cry out in pain, the medical staff was aware that there was a risk that Valdiviezo would be dropped again. Accordingly, Valdiviezo sufficiently alleged that the two
members of the medical staff acted recklessly when they ordered the detainees to pick him up again.