In re McDaniel Litigation

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 6, 2019·No. 1:19-cv-07680·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CURTIS McDANIEL, Plaintiff, 19-CV-7680 (CM) -against- ORDER TO AMEND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendant. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Rikers Island, brings this pro se action alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By order dated August 20, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. 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 in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 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 if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

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). 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. The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” 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. 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. 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. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, using the Court’s prisoner complaint form, brings this action against the People of the State of New York. Plaintiff alleges that New York City police officers assaulted him, used a taser on him, and falsely arrested him. The charges were later dismissed “due to speedy trial provisions.” (ECF No. 2 at 4.) Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages. Plaintiff attaches to the complaint a certificate of disposition from the Criminal Court of the City of New York, which indicates that Plaintiff was arrested on June 21, 2018, and that the charges against him were dismissed on speedy trial grounds on October 17, 2018.2 DISCUSSION A. Section 1983 To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person

acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). A § 1983 plaintiff must also allege facts showing the defendants’ direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Spavone v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Serv., 719 F.3d 127, 135 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir. 1995)). A defendant may not be held liable under § 1983 solely because that defendant employs or supervises a person who violated the plaintiff’s rights. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.”). An individual defendant can be personally involved in a § 1983 violation if: (1) the defendant participated directly in the alleged constitutional violation, (2) the defendant, after being informed of the violation through a report or appeal, failed to remedy the wrong, (3) the defendant created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom, (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts, or (5) the defendant exhibited deliberate indifference to the rights of [the plaintiff] by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring. Colon, 58 F.3d at 873.

2 Plaintiff filed a substantially similar complaint regarding a July 11, 2018 arrest, which was also dismissed on speedy trial grounds on October 17, 2018. See McDaniel v. People of the State of New York , No. 19-CV-3526 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2019) (directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint). Plaintiff fails to mention any individual defendants in the body of his complaint, or plead any facts about what they did or failed to do. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges in a general way that Defendants falsely arrested him and used excessive force against him. But he fails to provide specific facts that support those claims. Plaintiff alleges that the charges against him were dismissed, but he does not provide any other facts supporting his false arrest claim, and he also

does not explain where the underlying events occurred, or in what context. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to name individual defendants and explain how they were personally involved in violating his constitutional rights. B. Claims against the People of the State of New York “[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).

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

In re McDaniel Litigation, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

In re McDaniel Litigation (In re McDaniel Litigation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Colon v. Coughlin
58 F.3d 865 (Second Circuit, 1995)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Gollomp v. Spitzer
568 F.3d 355 (Second Circuit, 2009)