Brown v. Rensselaer County Jail

• Court: District Court, N.D. New York
• Decided: January 4, 2023
• Docket: 1:22-cv-01391
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JACINDA BROWN, Plaintiff, 1:22-CV-1391 V. (BKS/DJS) RENSSELAER COUNTY JAIL, Defendant.

APPEARANCES: JACINDA BROWN Plaintiff, Pro Se Brooklyn, New York 11218 DANIEL J. STEWART United States Magistrate Judge ORDER The Clerk has forwarded for review a civil complaint filed by Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 2, Compl. Originally commenced in the Southern District of New York, this case was transferred to this Court. Dkt. No. 5. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee but submitted

an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Dkt. No. 1, which was granted in the Southern District. Dkt. No. 3. In transferring the case, the Southern District made no assessment of the ability of the claim to proceed. See Dkt. No. 5.

_l-

I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT A. Governing Legal Standard 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, “(2) .. . the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that —...(B) the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).!_ Thus, even if a plaintiff meets the financial criteria to commence an action in forma pauperis, it is the court’s responsibility to determine whether the plaintiff may properly maintain the complaint that he filed in this District before the court may permit the plaintiff to proceed with this action in forma pauperis. See id. In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court has a duty to show liberality toward pro se litigants, see Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam), and should exercise “extreme caution . . . in ordering sua sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint «| before the adverse party has been served and both parties (but particularly the plaintiff) have had an opportunity to respond.” Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted). Therefore, a court should not dismiss a complaint if

' To determine whether an action is frivolous, a court must look to see whether the complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 SS 319, 325 (1989).

the plaintiff has stated “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Although a court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Jd. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not show[n] - that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Jd. at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). «#|Thus, a pleading that only “tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” will not suffice. /d. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). B. Analysis of the Complaint The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was formerly a corrections officer at Defendant Rensselaer County Jail. The Complaint asserts discrimination claims under -3-

Title VU, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and New York Human Rights Law. Compl. at pp. 3-4. Plaintiff alleges discrimination based on race, color, sex, and national origin. /d. at p. 3. Though not pled in great detail, Plaintiff alleges that she was subject to derogatory comments, sexually suggestive comments, forced to work overtime despite having seniority over male staff members, and was improperly suspended despite being subject to Covid-19 quarantine requirements. See generally id. at p. 10. The scope of review here is limited to whether Plaintiff has alleged an arguable claim, not whether Plaintiff can ultimately prevail. The allegations set forth above are minimally sufficient to arguably state a claim. Therefore, at this early stage of the proceedings, the Complaint contains sufficient allegations to warrant a responsive pleading from Defendant.* This Order does not address whether Plaintiff's Complaint would be sufficient to avoid dismissal upon the filing of a proper motion. II. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint be accepted for filing and that this case be

«| allowed to proceed; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk shall issue Summonses and forward them along with a packet containing General Order 25, which sets forth the Civil Case Management Plan

2 The Court notes that the named Defendant is the Rensselaer County Jail. In responding to the Complaint, counsel for Defendant should address whether the Jail itself is a proper party. See Rodriguez v. Favro, 2014 WL 4966918, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2014) (copy annexed hereto). 4.

used by the Northern District of New York, along with copies of the Complaint and this Order to the United States Marshal for service upon Defendant; and it is further ORDERED, that a response to the Complaint be filed by Defendant or Defendant’s counsel as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure subsequent to service of process on Defendant; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk is directed to schedule a Rule 16 Conference before the assigned Magistrate Judge; and it is further ORDERED, that all motions shall comply with the Local Rules of Practice of the Northern District. In accordance with the Local Rules, Plaintiff must promptly notify the Clerk’s Office and all parties or their counsel of any change in Plaintiff's address; failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 4, 2023 Albany, New York Z, □ Gig et US-Magistrate Judge

-5-

Based upon a careful review of the entire file 2014 WL 4966918 and the recommendations of the Magistrate Only the Westlaw citation Judge, the Report-Recommendation is is currently available. accepted in whole. See F—28 U.S.C. § 636(b) United States District Court, (1). N.D. New York. Therefore, it is Michael J. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, Vv. ORDERED that Dave FAVRO, Clinton County Sheriff; Major Smith, Jail Administrator; and 1. Plaintiff's claims against the Clinton County Clinton County Jail, Defendants. Jail are DISMISSED; No. 9:14-CV—0418 (DNH/DEP). 2. Clinton County is substituted as a defendant Signed on 3. 2014 in place of Clinton County Jail;

Attorneys and Law Firms 3. Upon receipt from plaintiff of the documents required for service of process, the Clerk shall Michael J. Rodrigez, Plattsburgh, NY, pro se. issue summonses and forward them, along with copies of the complaint, to the United States Marshal for service upon the named DECISION and ORDER defendants;

DAVID N. HURD, District Judge. 4. The Clerk forward a copy of the summons and complaint in this action by mail to the *1 Pro se plaintiff Michael J. Rodriguez County Attorney for Clinton County, together brought this civil rights action pursuant witha copy of this Decision and Order; to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 11, 2014, the Honorable David E. Peebles, 5. The defendants are directed to file a response United States Magistrate Judge, advised by to the complaint as provided for in the Federal Report-Recommendation that plaintiff's claims Rules of Civil Procedure following service of against the Clinton County Jail be dismissed Process on the defendants; and that Clinton County be substituted in place of that defendant. No objections to 6. All pleadings, motions and other documents the Report-Recommendation were filed. The ‘clating to this action be filed with the ReportRecommendation sent to plaintiff at Clerk of the United States District Court, his last known address was returned as Northern District of New York, 7th Floor, undeliverable. Federal Building, 100 S. Clinton St., Syracuse, New York 13261-7367. Any paper sent by a party to the court or the clerk must be

accompanied by a certificate showing that a and the jail itself alleging deprivation of true and correct copy of same was mailed his civil rights.' Plaintiffs complaint and to all opposing parties or their counsel. accompanying application for leave to proceed Any document received by the clerk or the _ jn forma pauperis (“IFP”) have been referred court which does not include a certificate to me for review. Having considered plaintiff's of service showing that a copy was served complaint and IFP application, I grant him upon all opposing parties or their attorneys _ eave to proceed IFP and recommend that he be will be returned, without processing. Plaintiff permitted to proceed with his claims against all must comply with any requests by the Clerk's of the named defendants, with the exception of Office for any documents that are necessary to the Clinton County Jail. maintain this action. All parties must comply with Local Rule 7.1 of the Northern District of New York in filing motions, which must I. BACKGROUND be returnable before the assigned district judge *2 On or about March 19, 2014, plaintiff with proper allowance for notice as required by — submitted the complaint in this action, naming the Rules. Plaintiffis also required to promptly the sheriff of Clinton County, identified as notify the clerk's office and all parties or their | Dave Favro; Major Smith, a jail administrator; counsel of any change in plaintiff's address; and the Clinton County Jail as defendants. Dkt. his failure to do so will result in the dismissal No. 2 at 1-2. The complaint alleges that, on of this action; and February 13, 2014, plaintiff, a Rastafarian, was told that he is not permitted to wear his religious 7. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of head covering, or crown, during movement this Decision and Order upon the parties in at the facility, visitation, recreation, and court accordance with the Local Rules. visits. [d. at 3-4. Plaintiff contends that the directive violates his First Amendment right IT IS SO ORDERED. to freely exercise his chosen religion as a Rastafarian. /d.

As originally filed in the Southern District REPORT, RECOMMENDATION, oe of New York, plaintiffs complaint was AND ORDER . accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed DAVID E. PEEBLES, United States Magistrate IFP. Dkt. No. 1. Upon initial review of the Judge. case in this district, following the transfer, District Judge David N. Hurd determined that Pro se plaintiff Michael J. Rodriguez, an plaintiff's IFP application was incomplete and inmate currently confined in the Clinton accordingly denied the application, ordered County Jail, located in Plattsburgh, New that the case be closed administratively, and York, has commenced this action, pursuant afforded the plaintiff thirty days to either pay to P42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Clinton the filing fee in full or submit a completed IFP County Sheriff, an administrator at the jail, application with a signed inmate authorization

form. Dkt. No. 5. Upon receipt of a completed redress from a governmental entity or officer inmate authorization form on April 24, 2014, or employee of a governmental entity,” and the case was reopened and forwarded to me for _ the court must “identify cognizable claims or review. Dkt. Nos. 6, 7. dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint ... is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which II. DISCUSSION relief may be granted; or ... seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from A. IEP Application such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also When a civil action is commenced in a federal district court, the statutory filing fee, set at $350 “Abbas v.. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d at the time plaintiff filed his complaint, must Cir.2007) (“We have found both sections [1915 . 3 and 1915A] applicable to prisoner proceedings ordinarily be paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).“ A. Co in forma pauperis.” ). court is authorized, however, to permit a litigant to proceed IFP if it determines that he is unable *3 In deciding whether a complaint states to pay the required filing fee. [28 U.S.C. § 4 colorable claim, a court must extend a 1915(a)(1). In this instance, becauseI conclude certain measure of deference in favor of pro that plaintiff now meets the requirements for litigants, Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, IFP status, his application for leave to proceed 696 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam), and extreme IFP is granted. ° caution should be exercised in ordering sua sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint before the adverse party has been served B. Sufficiency of Plaintiff's Complaint and the parties have had an opportunity to 1. Standard of Review address the sufficiency of plaintiff's allegations, Because I have found that plaintiff meets the Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37, 41 financial criteria for commencing this case IFP, (2d Cir.1983). However, the court also has I must next consider the sufficiency of the 2 overarching obligation to determine that a 4. oo claim is not legally frivolous before permitting claims set forth in his complaint in light of □□ □□ a pro se plaintiffs complaint to proceed. § 1915(e). Section 1915(e) directs See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh St. that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, Jenanis Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363 (2d Cir.2000) “the court shall dismiss the case at any time (holding that a district court may sua sponte if the court determines that ... the action ... (i) dismiss a frivolous complaint, notwithstanding is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a the fact that the plaintiff paid the statutory filing claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) fee), “Legal frivolity ... occurs where ‘the claim seeks monetary relief against a defendant who ig based on an indisputably meritless legal is immune from such relief.” U.S.C. § — theory [such as] when either the claim lacks an 1915(e)(2)(B). Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) — arguable basis in law, or a dispositive defense directs a court to review any “complaint clearly exists on the face of the complaint.’ in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks ‘Aguilar v. United States, Nos. 99-MC-

0304, 99-MC0408, 1999 WL 1067841, at *2 claims against defendant Nassau County Jail (D.Conn. Nov. 8, 1999) (quoting P2Zivingston because it “is an administrative arm of Nassau y, Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434,437 □ County, without a legal identity separate and (2d Cir.1998)); see also F-Neitzke v. Williams, apart from the County”); see also Hoisington 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[D]ismissal is v. Cnty. of Sullivan, 55 F.Supp.2d 212, 214 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (“Under New York Law, a proper only if the legal theory ... or factual , department of a municipal entity is merely a contentions lack an arguable basis.”); [Pino sandivision of the municipality and has no Ryan, 49 F.3d. 51, 53 (2d Cir.1995) (“[ T]he separate legal existence. Therefore, municipal decision that a complaint is based on an departments like the Department of Social indisputably meritless legal theory, for the Services are not amenable to suit, and no claims purposes of dismissal under !~section 1915(d), lie directly against the Department.” (citations may be based upon a defense that appears on —_omitted)). For this reason, I recommend that the face of the complaint.”). the claim asserted against defendant Clinton County Jail be dismissed. In deference to plaintiff's pro se status, however, I recommend 2. Analysis that the court sua sponte substitute Clinton Plaintiffs complaint asserts that defendants County as a defendant in the place of the have deprived him of his right to freely exercise his chosen religion. Dkt. No. 2 at 3-4. Clinton County Jail. Mindful of the Second Circuit's instruction to liberally construe a pro se plaintiff's pleading, ttt suasMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, — *4 Plaintiff's IFP application, which is now 191 (2d Cir.2008), I find that plaintiff should be complete, will be granted. Having reviewed permitted to pursue his First Amendment claim plaintiff's complaint, I recommend that it be to the extent it is asserted against defendants approved for filing and for the issuance of Favro and Smith. In so ruling, I express no summonses, subject to dismissal of plaintiff's opinion as to whether plaintiff's claims can claims against the Clinton County Jail and withstand a properly filed motion to dismiss or substitution of Clinton County in its place. for summary judgment. Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby Plaintiff's First Amendment claim asserted against defendant Clinton County Jail, ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave however, is legally deficient. It is well to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1) is established that a correctional facility, such GRANTED; and it is further as the Clinton County Jail, cannot be independently sued because it is not a distinct ORDERED that the clerk provide the legal entity. See O@ukes v. Nassau Cnty. superintendent of the Clinton County Jail, Jail, No. 12-CV—1139, 2012 WL 1965663, designated by plaintiff as his current location, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. May 29, 2012) (dismissing with a copy of plaintiffs authorization form

(Dkt. No. 6), and notify the official that this a party to the court or the clerk must be action has been filed and that plaintiff is accompanied by a certificate showing that a required the pay the Northern District of New «true and correct copy of same was mailed York the entire statutory filing fee of $350 to all opposing parties or their counsel. pursuant tol!28 U.S.C. § 1915; anditis further 4”y document received by the clerk or the court which does not include a certificate ORDERED that the clerk provide a copy of of service showing that a copy was served plaintiff's authorization form (Dkt. No.6)tothe “Pon all opposing parties or their attorneys financial deputy of the clerk's office; and it is will be returned, without processing. Plaintiff further respectfully must comply with any requests by the Clerk's Office for any documents that are necessary to RECOMMENDED | that plaintiffs claims maintain this action. All parties must comply against the Clinton County Jail be dismissed With Local Rule 7.1 of the Northern District and that Clinton County be substituted in place of New York in filing motions, which must of that defendant; and it is further hereby be returnable before the assigned district judge with proper allowance for notice as required by RECOMMENDED that, upon adoption of the Rules. Plaintiffis also required to promptly this report and recommendation, the clerk be “0t#fy the clerk's office and all parties or their directed to issue summonses and forward them, Counsel of any change in plaintiff's address; along with copies of the complaint, to the his failure to do so will result in the dismissal United States Marshal for service upon the this action; and it is further named defendants and that the clerk forward a copy of the summons and complaint in this *5 NOTICE: Pursuant to [28 U.S.C. § action by mail to the County Attorney for 636(b)(1), the parties may lodge written Clinton County, together with a copy of the objections to the foregoing report. Such court's final decision and order; and itis further objections must be filed with the clerk of the court within FOURTEEN days of service RECOMMENDED that the defendants be of this report. FAILURE TO SO OBJECT directed to file a response to the complaint TO THIS REPORT WILL PRECLUDE as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil ,AppELLATE REVIEW. [228 U.S.C. § 636(b) Procedure following service of process on the (1); Fed. R.Civ.P. 6(a), 6(d), 72; PBRoldan □□ defendants; and it is further hereby Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir.1993). RECOMMENDED that the court order all It is hereby ORDERED that the clerk pleadings, motions and other documents . of the court serve a copy of this report relating to this action be filed with the and recommendation upon the parties in Clerk of the United States District Court, . , accordance with this court's local rules. Northern District of New York, 7th Floor, Federal Building, 100 S. Clinton St., Syracuse, New York 13261-7367. Any paper sent by Filed Sept. 11, 2014.

All Citations Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2014 WL 4966918

Footnotes

1 This action was initially filed in the Southern District of New York but was subsequently transferred to this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Dkt. No. 3. 2 Effective May 1, 2013, the Judicial Conference increased the fee for commencing an action in a federal district court from $350 to $400 by adding a $50 administrative fee. 3 Plaintiff is reminded that, although his IFP application has been granted, he will still be required to pay fees that he incurs in this action, including copying and/or witness fees. 4 It is well-settled that a municipality, such as Clinton County, may not be liable pursuant to section 1983 under the theory of respondeat superior. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). In order to hold Clinton County liable under section 1983, plaintiffs complaint must allege sufficient facts to plausibly allege that the individual defendants’ unconstitutional actions were taken pursuant to an official municipal policy, custom, or practice. Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91; see also Vann v. City of N.Y., 72 F.3d 1040, 1049 (2d Cir.1995). Because it is unclear from a reading of plaintiff's complaint whether he has alleged that the instructions given to him regarding the wearing of head coverings was pursuant to a county policy, custom or practice, and in deference to his pro se status, | recommend that Clinton County be named as a defendant. Again, in rendering this recommendation, | express no opinion as to whether plaintiff's claims against the County can withstand a properly filed motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.

End of Document © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.