Casanova v. Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 9, 2019
Docket1:19-cv-05207
StatusUnknown

This text of Casanova v. Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center (Casanova v. Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Casanova v. Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center, (E.D.N.Y. 2019).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RAYSHAWN ISAIAH CASANOVA, Plaintiff, 19-CV-6274(CM) -against- ORDER TO AMEND BROOKLYN METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER, et al., Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently detainedat the Orange County Jail, brings this pro seaction, alleging that correctional staff at Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) failed to protect him from an inmate assault, and that the medical staff at the Westchester County Jail (WCJ) –where he was later transferred – failed to provide him with medical attention for his serious medical needs following the assault.By order datedAugust 5, 2019,the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis.1 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.SeeFed. 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

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1). 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). BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the complaint: On April 2, 2018, at the MDC, three

inmates pushed Plaintiff into a cell and physically assaulted him. During the four-to-five-minute assault, Plaintiff called out to correctional staff, but nobody responded. Plaintiff became unconscious, and after he woke up, he returned to his cell. Later that day, an MDC correction officer noticed Plaintiff’s injuries and transported him to the segregated housing unit (SHU) where Plaintiff suffered untreated with “a sharp, numb pain in [his] left cheek, double vision, a swollen shut/bruised left eye, two missing teeth, multiple lumps all over [his] face and head, and multiple cuts/scratches all over [his] face/head and body.” ECF 1:19-CV-6274, 2. Plaintiff “also suffered from an extreme and long lasting migraine and was vomiting nonstop.” Id. Later that day, after Plaintiff’s persistent complaints, correctional staff transported him to the medical unit where staff concluded that Plaintiff should be

transported to a hospital. At the hospital, a doctor diagnosed Plaintiff with a “heavy” concussion, a fracture in his left cheek bone, and damage to his orbital socket; the doctor concluded that Plaintiff required surgery. Id.After Plaintiff was transported back to MDC’s SHU, he awaited the scheduling of the surgery. Approximately ten days later, correctional staff transported him to meet with an outside surgeon who scheduled the surgery. Back at MDC’s SHU, while awaiting surgery, Plaintiff was transferred to WCJ for reasons unknown to Plaintiff. At WCJ, he immediately inquired about the scheduled surgery, and 2 WCJ staff informed him that MDC failed to inform them of his medical condition. Approximately one to two months later, after Plaintiff’s persistent complaints, WCJ staff transported Plaintiff to Westchester Medical Center where a doctor informed him “that it was too late for surgery, as [his] fracture/injuries had already begun to improperly heal as is . . . [and that] any injuries that didn’t properly heal will unfortunately become permanent.” Id.

DISCUSSION A. Claims that arose at the MDC The Court dismisses the MDC and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) under the doctrine of sovereign immunity Sovereign immunity generally bars federal courts from hearing suits against federal agencies, except where that immunity has been waived.See United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). The plaintiff bears theburden to show that Congress waived sovereign immunity with respect to the claims.SeeUnited States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). Here, Plaintiff has not invoked any basis for abrogating the immunity of the named federal agencies.The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the MDC and the BOP because those claims are barred underthe doctrine of sovereign immunity. See28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). The Court construes the complaint as asserting a claim under Bivens and transfers the claim to the Eastern District of New York Because Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated at the MDC, which is a federal facility, the Court liberally construes the complaint as asserting claims underBivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009) (“[Bivens] is the federal analog to suits brought against state officials under [§ 1983].”); Morales v. City of New York, 752 F.3d 234, 237 (2d Cir. 2014) 3 (holding that district court properly construed §1983 claims brought against federal employee as arising under Bivens). Bivensactions are brought against individual defendants. See Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1860 (2017) (noting that a Bivensaction must be brought against an individual for the individual’s own acts). The general venue provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1391,2 controls in Bivensclaims.Because

Plaintiff does not name individual defendants, it is not clear whether this district is a proper venue under § 1391(b)(1). But because the events giving rise to this claim occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue under § 1391(b)(2)for Plaintiffto litigate hisBivensclaim. As venue for Plaintiff’s Bivensclaim lies in the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), the Court transfer the claim to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Court construes the complaint as asserting a claimunder the Federal Tort Claims Act and transfers the claim to the Eastern District of New York Because Plaintiff seeks money damages for injuries allegedly caused by federal employees, the Court construes the complaint as seeking relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C.

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
United States v. Mitchell
445 U.S. 535 (Supreme Court, 1980)
United States v. Mitchell
463 U.S. 206 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Grullon v. City of New Haven
720 F.3d 133 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange
658 F. Supp. 2d 539 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Spinale v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
621 F. Supp. 2d 112 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Hall v. City of White Plains
185 F. Supp. 2d 293 (S.D. New York, 2002)
A.Q.C. Ex Rel. Castillo v. United States
715 F. Supp. 2d 452 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Ziglar v. Abbasi
582 U.S. 120 (Supreme Court, 2017)
Colon v. Coughlin
58 F.3d 865 (Second Circuit, 1995)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Morales v. City of New York
752 F.3d 234 (Second Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Casanova v. Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casanova-v-brooklyn-metropolitan-detention-center-nyed-2019.