Johnson v. The City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 26, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-03091·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GLENN JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -against- 23 Civ. 03091 (JHR) CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY ORDER OF SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CORRECTION OFFICER McCUTCHEN # 18140; CORRECTION OFFICER JOHN DOE, Defendants. JENNIFER H. REARDEN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to protect him from an assault by several other inmates on July 1, 2022, while he was detained at the Eric M. Taylor Center (“EMTC”) on Rikers Island. By Order dated April 17, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 DISCUSSION A. New York City Department of Correction Plaintiff’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction (“DOC”) must be dismissed because the DOC, as an agency of the City of New York, cannot be sued in this action. See N.Y. City Charter ch. 17, § 396 (“[A]ll actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law.”); Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d

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). 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Emerson v. City of New York, 740 F. Supp. 2d 385, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“[A] plaintiff is generally prohibited from suing a municipal agency.”). B. Waiver of Service The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the DOC and the New York City Law Department (the “Law Department”) of this Order. The Court requests that the City of New York and

Correction Officer McCutchen, Shield # 18140, waive service of summons. C. John Doe Defendant Under Valentin v. Dinkins, “a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant.” Williams v. City of New York, No. 23-CV-2700 (JPO), 2023 WL 3511431, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2023) (citing Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997)). Plaintiff’s Complaint supplies sufficient information to permit the DOC to identify the John Doe correction officer who was allegedly duty at EMTC on July 1, 2022, along with Correction Officer McCutchen, when Plaintiff was allegedly assaulted. It is therefore ordered that the Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of the DOC, must ascertain the identity and shield number of the John Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where the Defendant may be served.2 The 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 defendant. The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the

2 If the Doe defendant is a current or former DOC employee or official, the 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 Law Department must provide a residential address where the individual may be served. 2 original Complaint. An amended complaint form, which Plaintiff should complete, is attached to this Order. Once Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen it and, if necessary, issue an order asking the newly named defendant 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 the date of this Order, Defendants must serve responses to these standard discovery requests. In their responses, Defendants must quote each request verbatim.3 E. New York Legal Assistance Group Plaintiff may consult the legal clinic in this District that assists people who are parties in civil cases and do not have lawyers (the “Clinic”). The Clinic is run by a private organization called the New York Legal Assistance Group (“NYLAG”). NYLAG is not part of, or run by, the Court (and therefore cannot, among other things, accept filings on behalf of the court, which

must still be made by any pro se party through the Pro Se Intake Unit). To receive limited-scope assistance from the Clinic, Plaintiff may mail a signed retainer and intake form to the NYLAG Pro Se Clinic at 40 Foley Square, LL22, New York, New York 10007. Once the paperwork is received, the Clinic will coordinate contact with the litigant, which may take up to two weeks. Copies of the Clinic’s flyer, retainer, and intake form are attached to this Order.

3 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. 3 CONCLUSION The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against New York City Department of Correction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gii). 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 Defendants the City of New York and Correction Officer McCutchen, Shield # 18140, waive service of summons. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Order and the Complaint to the New York City Law Department at: 100 Church Street, New York, New York 10007. Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this action. Plaintiff is referred to the NYLAG Pro Se Clinic. Copies of the Clinic’s flyer, retainer, and intake form are attached to this Order. An Amended Civil Rights Complaint form is also attached to this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff, in addition to a copy of this Order. 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: June 26, 2023 New York, New York

nited States District Judge

Y | A G Since 1990, NYLAG has provided free civil legal services to New Yorkers who cannot afford private attorneys. New York ME Legal Assistance Group Free Legal Assistance for Self-Represented Incarcerated Civil Litigants in Federal District Court

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

Johnson v. The City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Johnson v. The City of New York (Johnson v. The City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related