Lugo v. The State of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 23, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-05602·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: ULYSE LUGO, DATE FILED: 10/23 /2023 Plaintiff, -against- 23-CV-5602 (VEC) THE STATE OF NEW YORK; WARDEN JANE VALENTIN ORDER DOE; LT. JOHN DOE #1; LT. JOHN DOE #2; ACTING CAPTAIN JOHN DOE; MCC MEDICAL STAFF, Defendants. VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark, New Jersey, brings this pro se action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). He alleges that in October 2020, he was denied adequate medical care when he was incarcerated at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York (“MCC New York”). By order dated September 28, 2023, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the claims brought against Defendant State of New York and directs the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to identify the John and Jane Doe defendants. 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 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). governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s IFP 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). 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.

DISCUSSION A. Claims against the State of New York Plaintiff brings this action asserting that in October 2020, while he was in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at MCC New York, several John Doe defendants violated his rights. Yet, he inexplicably names the State of New York as a defendant. Because Plaintiff was not in the custody of the State of New York when the alleged violations occurred, his claims against this entity must be dismissed. Furthermore, even if the State of New York were somehow implicated in Plaintiff’s claims, it must still be dismissed because any such claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are barred under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution.2 “[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). New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting

Section 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977). Therefore, any Section 1983 claims that Plaintiff wishes to pursue against the State of New York are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). B. John and Jane Doe Defendants Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court to identify a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit the BOP to identify the following John and Jane Doe defendants who allegedly were involved in the alleged violations on October 22, 2020, at MCC New York: (1) Warden Jane Doe; (2) Lt. John Doe #1; (3) Lt. John Doe #2; (4) Acting Captain John Doe; and (5) the John and Jane Doe medical staff members who allegedly provided inadequate

medical care. It is therefore ordered that the United States Attorney’s Office (“USAO”), which is the attorney for and agent of the BOP, must ascertain the identities and badge numbers of each John or Jane Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address at which each defendant may be served. The USAO must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within 60 days of the date of this order.

2 As the State of New York is a state rather than a federal entity, Plaintiff’s claims against the state would arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than Bivens. Section 1983 allows an individual to bring suit against persons who, acting under color of state law, have caused him to be depriv[ed] of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Within 30 days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the John and Jane Doe defendants. The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original complaint. An amended complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to this order. After 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 the USM-285

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

Lugo v. The State of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Lugo v. The State of New York (Lugo v. The State of New York) — 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)
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)