UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TYRONE COOPER, Plaintiff, v. 24-CV-1128 (KMK) GREENE HAVEN CORRECTIONAL VALENTIN ORDER FACILITY; JHON DOE CORRECTION OFFICERS, Defendants. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility, brings this Action, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, while he was confined at Green Haven Correctional Facility (“Green Haven”), correction officers ignored a court order and forced him to have a haircut, in violation of the tenets of his Rastafarian religious beliefs and his right to the free exercise of his religion under the First Amendment. By Order dated May 15, 2024, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 As set forth in this Order, the Court (1) dismisses the claims against Green Haven under the Eleventh Amendment; and (2) directs the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) to identify the John Doe correction officers. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
1 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). relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. 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. Federal 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. DISCUSSION A. Claims against Green Haven Correctional Facility “[A]s a general rule, state governments may not be sued in federal court 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). “The immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment extends beyond the states themselves to state agents and state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state.” Id. New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting § 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977). Plaintiff names Green Haven, a facility operated by DOCCS, as a Defendant. Because DOCCS is an arm of the State of New York, it is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity that extends to its facilities such as Green Haven. See Gardner v. Koeningsman, No. 21-CV- 10185, 2022 WL 1058498, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022); White v. New York, No. 19-CV-0543, 2019 WL 2578270, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2019). The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Green Haven because Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a Defendant that is immune from such relief and, therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.2 See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see Close v. New York, 125 F.3d 31, 38- 39 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[U]nless New York waived its immunity, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.”). B. John Doe Correction Officers Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the Court in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the Complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit DOCCS to identify the John Doe correction officers whom Plaintiff alleges ignored his no haircut voucher and directed an inmate to cut his hair at Green Haven on November 28, 2023. 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 badge number of
each John Doe Defendant whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where each of those Defendants may be served. The Attorney General must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within 60 days of the date of this order. Within 30 days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified defendants. The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original Complaint. An amended complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to
2 Green Haven is also not a “person” for the purposes of Section 1983. See 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. App. Div., Second Dep’t S. Ct., 421 F.2d 625, 626 (2d Cir. 1970) (court not a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983); Whitley v. Westchester Cnty. Corr. Fac. Admin., No. 97-CV-420 (SS), 1997 WL 659100, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 1997) (correctional facility or jail not a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983). 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 a USM-285 form with the address for each named newly identified defendant and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service.
CONCLUSION The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Green Haven Correctional Facility as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii); Fed. R. Civ. P.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TYRONE COOPER, Plaintiff, v. 24-CV-1128 (KMK) GREENE HAVEN CORRECTIONAL VALENTIN ORDER FACILITY; JHON DOE CORRECTION OFFICERS, Defendants. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility, brings this Action, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, while he was confined at Green Haven Correctional Facility (“Green Haven”), correction officers ignored a court order and forced him to have a haircut, in violation of the tenets of his Rastafarian religious beliefs and his right to the free exercise of his religion under the First Amendment. By Order dated May 15, 2024, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 As set forth in this Order, the Court (1) dismisses the claims against Green Haven under the Eleventh Amendment; and (2) directs the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) to identify the John Doe correction officers. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
1 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). relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. 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. Federal 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. DISCUSSION A. Claims against Green Haven Correctional Facility “[A]s a general rule, state governments may not be sued in federal court 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). “The immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment extends beyond the states themselves to state agents and state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state.” Id. New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting § 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977). Plaintiff names Green Haven, a facility operated by DOCCS, as a Defendant. Because DOCCS is an arm of the State of New York, it is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity that extends to its facilities such as Green Haven. See Gardner v. Koeningsman, No. 21-CV- 10185, 2022 WL 1058498, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022); White v. New York, No. 19-CV-0543, 2019 WL 2578270, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2019). The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Green Haven because Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a Defendant that is immune from such relief and, therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.2 See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see Close v. New York, 125 F.3d 31, 38- 39 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[U]nless New York waived its immunity, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.”). B. John Doe Correction Officers Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the Court in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the Complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit DOCCS to identify the John Doe correction officers whom Plaintiff alleges ignored his no haircut voucher and directed an inmate to cut his hair at Green Haven on November 28, 2023. 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 badge number of
each John Doe Defendant whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where each of those Defendants may be served. The Attorney General must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within 60 days of the date of this order. Within 30 days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified defendants. The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original Complaint. An amended complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to
2 Green Haven is also not a “person” for the purposes of Section 1983. See 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. App. Div., Second Dep’t S. Ct., 421 F.2d 625, 626 (2d Cir. 1970) (court not a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983); Whitley v. Westchester Cnty. Corr. Fac. Admin., No. 97-CV-420 (SS), 1997 WL 659100, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 1997) (correctional facility or jail not a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983). 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 a USM-285 form with the address for each named newly identified defendant and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service.
CONCLUSION The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Green Haven Correctional Facility as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 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 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
SO ORDERED. Dated: June 10, 2024 White Plains, New York KENNETH M. KARAS United States District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____CV_______________ Write the full name of each plaintiff. (Include case number if one has been assigned)
AMENDED -against- COMPLAINT (Prisoner) Do you want a jury trial? ☐ Yes ☐ No
Write the full name of each defendant. If you cannot fit the names of all of the defendants in the space provided, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed above must be identical to those contained in Section IV.
NOTICE The public can access electronic court files. For privacy and security reasons, papers filed with the court should therefore not contain: an individual’s full social security number or full birth date; the full name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account number. A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of an individual’s birth; a minor’s initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. I. LEGAL BASIS FOR CLAIM State below the federal legal basis for your claim, if known. This form is designed primarily for prisoners challenging the constitutionality of their conditions of confinement; those claims are often brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (against state, county, or municipal defendants) or in a “Bivens” action (against federal defendants). ☐ Violation of my federal constitutional rights ☐ Other: II. PLAINTIFF INFORMATION Each plaintiff must provide the following information. Attach additional pages if necessary.
First Name Middle Initial Last Name
State any other names (or different forms of your name) you have ever used, including any name you have used in previously filing a lawsuit.
Prisoner ID # (if you have previously been in another agency’s custody, please specify each agency and the ID number (such as your DIN or NYSID) under which you were held)
Current Place of Detention
Institutional Address
County, City State Zip Code III. PRISONER STATUS Indicate below whether you are a prisoner or other confined person: ☐ Pretrial detainee ☐ Civilly committed detainee ☐ Immigration detainee ☐ Convicted and sentenced prisoner ☐ Other: IV. DEFENDANT INFORMATION To the best of your ability, provide the following information for each defendant. If the correct information is not provided, it could delay or prevent service of the complaint on the defendant. Make sure that the defendants listed below are identical to those listed in the caption. Attach additional pages as necessary. Defendant 1: First Name Last Name Shield #
Current Job Title (or other identifying information)
Current Work Address
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 2: First Name Last Name Shield #
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 3: First Name Last Name Shield #
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 4: First Name Last Name Shield #
County, City State Zip Code V. STATEMENT OF CLAIM Place(s) of occurrence:
Date(s) of occurrence: FACTS: State here briefly the FACTS that support your case. Describe what happened, how you were harmed, and how each defendant was personally involved in the alleged wrongful actions. Attach additional pages as necessary. INJURIES: If you were injured as a result of these actions, describe your injuries and what medical treatment, if any, you required and received.
VI. RELIEF State briefly what money damages or other relief you want the court to order. VII. PLAINTIFF’S CERTIFICATION AND WARNINGS By signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that: (1) the complaint is not being presented for an improper purpose (such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation); (2) the claims are supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument to change existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. I understand that if I file three or more cases while I am a prisoner that are dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, I may be denied in forma pauperis status in future cases. I also understand that prisoners must exhaust administrative procedures before filing an action in federal court about prison conditions, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and that my case may be dismissed if I have not exhausted administrative remedies as required. I agree to provide the Clerk's Office with any changes to my address. I understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may result in the dismissal of my case. Each Plaintiff must sign and date the complaint. Attach additional pages if necessary. If seeking to proceed without prepayment of fees, each plaintiff must also submit an IFP application.
Dated Plaintiff’s Signature
Prison Address
County, City State Zip Code
Date on which I am delivering this complaint to prison authorities for mailing: