Barkley v. Otisville Correctional Facility

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 26, 2024·No. 7:24-cv-05017·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: PETER J. BARKLEY, DATE FILED: 08/26/2024 _ Plaintiff, 24-CV-5017 (NSR) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE OTISVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant. NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at Altona Correctional Facility, brings this action, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that staff at Otisville Correctional Facility denied him necessary medical attention. Plaintiff names Otisville Correctional Facility as the sole defendant. By order dated August 5, 2024, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. ! As set forth in this order, the Court dismisses the claims brought against Otisville Correctional Facility and directs the New York State Attorney General to identify the individuals whom Plaintiff alleges denied him medical attention. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these

' Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

DISCUSSION A. Otisville Correctional Facility Plaintiff’s claims against Otisville Correctional Facility must be dismissed. To state a claim under Section 1983, “the plaintiff must name the ‘person’ who violated or caused the violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights.’” Whitley v. Westchester Cnty. Corr. Fac. Admin., No. 97-CV-0420 (Sotomayor, J.), 1997 WL 659100, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 1997). Otisville Correctional Facility is not a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983. See, e.g., Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state is not a “person” for the purpose of Section 1983 claims); Zuckerman v. Appellate Div., Second Dep’t Supreme Court, 421 F.2d 625, 626 (2d Cir. 1970) (court not a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983); Whitley, 1997 WL 659100, at *7 (correctional facility not a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983). The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Otisville Correctional Facility for failure to state a claim.2 See 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

2 Plaintiff’s claims also cannot proceed against Otisville, a state correctional facility, because claims against state instrumentalities are barred under the Eleventh Amendment “unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or unless Congress has abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009). New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting Section 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977). B. Unidentified Individuals Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) to identify the correctional and/or medical staff that allegedly denied

Plaintiff medical attention for his hand, from April 5, 2024, to the date Plaintiff was transferred to Altona Correctional Facility. It is therefore ordered that the New York State Attorney General, who is the attorney for and agent of DOCCS, must ascertain the identity and, if relevant, badge number of each John Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where the defendant may be served. The Attorney General must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order. Within thirty days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendant(s). The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original complaint. An amended complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to this order. Once Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended complaint

and, if necessary, issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for the named John Doe Defendants and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. CONCLUSION The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Otisville Correctional Facility. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order and the complaint to the New York State Attorney General at: Managing Attorney’s Office, 28 Liberty Street, 16th Floor, New York NY 10005. An “Amended Complaint” form is attached to this order. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order to pro se Plaintiff at the address listed on ECF and show proof of service on the docket.

SO ORDERED. Dated: August 26, 2024 White Plains, New York NELSON S. ROMÁN United States District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barkley v. Otisville Correctional Facility, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Barkley v. Otisville Correctional Facility (Barkley v. Otisville Correctional Facility) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related