Deans v. Cimorelli

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 21, 2022
Docket7:18-cv-02576
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Deans v. Cimorelli, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ere mTRONIC ALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OG □□ DATE FILED: _ 4/21/2022 TASHAY DAVID DEANS, ————————————

Plaintitt 18-CV-02576 (NSR) -against- ORDER SGT. CIMORELLLF, et al, Defendants.

NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Tashay David Deans (‘Plaintiff’) filed suit on March 22, 2018 against the Orange County Jail Medical Unit and several medical professionals after he experienced an asthma attack and styes in his eyes while incarcerated. (ECF No. 2.) On June 22, 2018, the case was reassigned to this Court. On June 25, 2018, the Court issued an Order of Service directing the Orange County Law Department identify the nurses and doctors who treated Plaintiff as discussed in the Complaint and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 7.) On August 23, 2018, arepresentative from the Orange County Law Department filed a letter identifying the nurses and doctors pursuant to the Court’s Order. (ECF No. 9.) On October 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff has now filed requests to have the US. Marshals Service effect service, a Valentin Order, and a proposed order to show cause. (ECF Nos. 25, 26 & 27.) DISCUSSION I. OCJ Medical Unit Plaintiffs claims against the Orange County Jail Medical Unit must be dismissed because city agencies or departments do not have the capacity to be sued under New York law. See

Omnipoint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange, 658 F. Supp. 2d 539, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“In New York, agencies of a municipality are not suable entities.”); Hall v. City of White Plains, 185 F. Supp. 2d 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“Under New York law, departments which are merely administrative arms of a municipality do not have a legal identity separate and apart from the

municipality and cannot sue or be sued.”); see also N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 2 (“The term ‘municipal corporation,’ as used in this chapter, includes only a county, town, city and village.”). Instead, Plaintiff may file claims against Orange County pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint that includes a Monell claim against Orange County. The second amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original complaint. An amended complaint form is also attached to this Order. Once Plaintiff has filed the second amended complaint, the Court will, if necessary, issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to issue a summons as to each named defendant. II. U.S. Marshals Service Plaintiff is requesting the Court direct the U.S. Marshals Service effect service. However,

Plaintiff has not been granted in forma pauperis status. Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process. . . in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (the court must order the Marshals Service to serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP)). Therefore, the Court directs Plaintiff to submit the application attached to this Order to apply for in forma pauperis status. Plaintiff’s request is denied without prejudice to renew upon the Court’s receipt and approval of Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application. III. Valentin Order Plaintiff is requesting a Valentin Order directing Orange County identify seven persons and entities. However, 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). None of the listed persons or entities are defendants, and therefore Plaintiff's request is denied. IV. Order to Show Cause Lastly, Plaintiff filed a proposed order to show cause. (ECF No. 27.) Construed liberally, this appears to be a response to the Court’s Orders to Show cause directing the Plaintiff to respond in writing why his claims against Defendants should not be dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b). (ECF Nos. 16 & 19.) The Court’s Orders to Show Cause are deemed withdrawn. CONCLUSION Plaintiff is directed to submit a completed in forma pauperis application and is granted leave to file a second amended complaint pursuant to this Order by June 21, 2022. Plaintiff's requests for the U.S. Marshals to effect service (ECF No. 25) and for a Valentin Order (ECF No. 26) are denied without prejudice, and the Court’s previous Orders to Show Cause (ECF Nos. 16 & 19) are withdrawn. The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss Orange County Jail Medical Unit as a defendant, mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff, and show service on the docket. Dated: April 21, 2022 SO ORDERED: White Plains, New York

-NELSONS.ROMAN United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

(full name of the plaintiff or petitioner applying (each person must submit a separate application)) CV ( ) ( ) -against- (Provide docket number, if available; if filing this with your complaint, you will not yet have a docket number.)

(full name(s) of the defendant(s)/respondent(s)) APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS I am a plaintiff/petitioner in this case and declare that I am unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and I believe that I am entitled to the relief requested in this action. In support of this application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (without prepaying fees or costs), I declare that the responses below are true:

1. Are you incarcerated? Yes No (If “No,” go to Question 2.) I am being held at:

Do you receive any payment from this institution? Yes No Monthly amount: If I am a prisoner, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), I have attached to this document a “Prisoner Authorization” directing the facility where I am incarcerated to deduct the filing fee from my account in installments and to send to the Court certified copies of my account statements for the past six months. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), (b). I understand that this means that I will be required to pay the full filing fee.

2. Are you presently employed? Yes No If “yes,” my employer’s name and address are:

Gross monthly pay or wages:

If “no,” what was your last date of employment?

Gross monthly wages at the time:

3. In addition to your income stated above (which you should not repeat here), have you or anyone else living at the same residence as you received more than $200 in the past 12 months from any of the following sources? Check all that apply.

(a) Business, profession, or other self-employment Yes No (b) Rent payments, interest, or dividends Yes No (c) Pension, annuity, or life insurance payments Yes No (d) Disability or worker’s compensation payments Yes No (e) Gifts or inheritances Yes No (f) Any other public benefits (unemployment, social security, Yes No food stamps, veteran’s, etc.) (g) Any other sources Yes No

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

Related

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange
658 F. Supp. 2d 539 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Hall v. City of White Plains
185 F. Supp. 2d 293 (S.D. New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Deans v. Cimorelli, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deans-v-cimorelli-nysd-2022.