Butler v. City of New York

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USDC SDNY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SHAQUAN BUTLER; DOC #: ROBERT L. MURRAY, DATE FILED: 4/4/2 023 Plaintiffs, 23-cv-455 (MKV) -against- ORDER OF SERVICE CITY OF NEW YORK; 15 JOHN DOE C.O.; 2 JOHN DOE CAPT.; 2 JOHN DOE DEPT.; 1 JANE DOE DEPT.; 2 JOHN DOE CHS STAFF, Defendants. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Shaquan Butler, who is currently detained at the George R. Vierno Center (“GRVC”) on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants used excessive force against him.1 By order dated January 19, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.2 STANDARD OF REVIEW The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim 1 In the caption of the complaint, Robert L. Murray is also listed as a plaintiff. Additionally, at the top of the form complaint is written, “Plaintiff 2# Class Action.” Robert L. Murray did not sign the complaint, and the allegations in the complaint do not pertain to him. Robert L. Murray also did not submit an IFP application and prisoner authorization in this case. The Court therefore considers Shaquan Butler as the sole Plaintiff in this action. 2 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). 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 if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

While the law mandates dismissal on any of these 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 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially

plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. DISCUSSION A. Claims on behalf of others To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to bring this action on behalf of Robert L. Murray and others, his request is denied. The statute governing appearances in federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1654, allows two types of representation: “that by an attorney admitted to the practice of law by a governmental regulatory body, and that by a person representing himself.” Lattanzio v.

COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308 (2d Cir. 1991)). Because a nonlawyer cannot bring suit on behalf of others, a pro se plaintiff cannot act as a class representative. Rodriguez v. Eastman Kodak Co., 88 F. App’ x 470, 470 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998)); Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408, 412-15 (2d Cir. 1976). The Court therefore dismisses without prejudice any claims Plaintiff asserts on behalf of Robert L. Murray and others. B. City of New York The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of this order. The Court requests that the City of New York

waive service of summons. C. John/Jane Doe Defendants 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 City Department of Correction to identify the John and Jane Doe Defendants who he alleges used excessive force against him on December 29, 2022, in the GRVC intake area. It is therefore ordered that the New York City Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of the New York City Department of Correction, must ascertain the identity and badge number of each John Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the addresses where the defendants may be served.3 The New York City Law Department 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 defendants. 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 asking Defendants to waive service. D. Local Civil Rule 33.2 Local Civil Rule 33.2, which requires defendants in certain types of prisoner cases to respond to specific, court-ordered discovery requests, applies to this action. Those discovery requests are available on the Court’s website under “Forms” and are titled “Plaintiff’s Local Civil Rule 33.2 Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.” Within 120 days of service of the complaint, Defendants must serve responses to these standard discovery requests. In their responses, Defendants must quote each request verbatim.4

CONCLUSION The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims on behalf of Robert L. Murray and others. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654.

3 If the Doe defendant is a current or former DOC employee or official, the New York City Law Department should note in the response to this order that an electronic request for a waiver of service can be made under the e-service agreement for cases involving DOC defendants, rather than by personal service at a DOC facility. If the Doe defendant is not a current or former DOC employee or official, but otherwise works or worked at a DOC facility, the New York City Law Department must provide a residential address where the individual may be served. 4 If Plaintiff would like copies of these discovery requests before receiving the responses and does not have access to the website, Plaintiff may request them from the Pro Se Intake Unit. The Clerk of Court is directed to electronically notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of this order. The Court requests that Defendant City of New York waive service of summons. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order and the complaint to New York City Law Department at: 100 Church Street, New York, New York 10007. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff. Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this action. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: April 4, 2023 New York, New York K. (/ La Ly Ke Vagloc nited States District Judge