Jones v. Downstate Correctional Facility

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 22, 2019·No. 7:19-cv-05524·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT cee . □ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK i : ee eyo wen 4 PARIS JONES, eee □

~against- 7:19-CV-5524 (NSR)

CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, Defendants. NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Bare Hill Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, while he was incarcerated in Downstate Correctional Facility, Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By order dated July 16, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).! 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. 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

' 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).

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, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). DISCUSSION A. Downstate Correctional Facility Plaintiff’s claims against Downstate Correctional Facility must also be dismissed. Section 1983 provides that an action may be maintained against a “person” who has deprived another of rights under the “Constitution and Laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Downstate Correctional Facility is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. See generally Will v. Mich. Dept of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state is not a “person” for the purpose of § 1983 claims); Zuckerman v. Appellate Div., Second Dept Supreme Court, 421 F.2d 625, 626 (2d Cir. 1970) (court not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 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 § 1983). Therefore, Plaintiffs claim against Downstate Correctional Facility must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) Gi). B. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Plaintiff’s claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision must also be dismissed. “[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 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977). Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed. C. Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Plaintiff asserts that he on October 13, 2016, and May 1, 2018, he was subjected to a physical examination that violated his constitutional rights. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed, under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to amend the caption of this action to add John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 as Defendants. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses that these Defendants may wish to assert. D. John Doe Defendants 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). In the complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to identify John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, who physically examined Plaintiff on October 13, 2016, and May 1, 2018, at Downstate Correctional Facility. It is therefore ordered that the New York State Attorney General, who is the attorney for and agent of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, must ascertain the identity and badge number of each John Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the addresses where the Defendant may be served. The New York State Attorney General must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order.

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

Jones v. Downstate Correctional Facility, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Jones v. Downstate Correctional Facility (Jones v. Downstate Correctional Facility) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related