Gary Morrow v. John Doe Sgt., Badge #2099; John Doe C.O., Badge #5342; Suffolk County

Summary

This Memorandum and Order addresses pro se plaintiff Gary Morrow’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint concerning the failure to provide him a dinner meal at Suffolk County Correctional Facility on one occasion. The court analyzes claims involving conditions of confinement, free exercise of religion, equal protection, RFRA, municipal liability, and New York correctional-facility food regulations, and dismisses the claims discussed in the excerpt for failure to state plausible claims.

Holdings

1. The absence of a single meal does not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation under the Fourteenth Amendment's deliberate indifference standard for pretrial detainees.
2. Isolated acts of negligence cannot violate an individual's free exercise of religion; a plaintiff must allege that a government entity burdened sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not neutral or generally applicable.
3. The amended complaint fails to state an equal protection claim because it does not allege intentional discrimination, selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations, or treatment different from similarly situated individuals.
4. RFRA is unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments; RLUIPA provides only injunctive and declaratory relief, not monetary damages against state officers.
5. Suffolk County cannot be held liable under Section 1983 because the complaint fails to allege that the constitutional deprivation resulted from an official policy, practice, or custom.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint states a plausible conditions of confinement claim under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
2. Whether the amended complaint states a plausible Free Exercise Clause claim under the First Amendment
3. Whether the amended complaint states a plausible Equal Protection Clause claim under the Fourteenth Amendment
4. Whether RFRA claims against state/local defendants are viable
5. Whether Suffolk County can be held liable under Monell
6. Whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims

Disposition

dismissed