Maina v. Somerset County Jail

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 5, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-10783
StatusUnknown

This text of Maina v. Somerset County Jail (Maina v. Somerset County Jail) 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
Maina v. Somerset County Jail, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHELLE MAINA, Plaintiff, 23-CV-10783 (LTS) -against- PARTIAL TRANSFER ORDER AND ORDER TO AMEND SOMERSET COUNTY JAIL, ET AL., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated her federal constitutional rights. She names various Defendants that appear to be located or employed in Somerset County, New Jersey, and on Rikers Island in New York. By order dated January 24, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court severs Plaintiff’s claims arising in New Jersey against defendants located in New Jersey, transfers the severed claims to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint with respect to her claims arising in the Southern District of New York. 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 IFP

1 Plaintiff submitted the complaint without an IFP application and prisoner authorization. By order dated December 19, 2023, the Court directed Plaintiff to pay the filing fees or submit an IFP application and prisoner authorization. (ECF 2.) The Court received Plaintiff’s IFP application and prisoner authorization on January 18, 2024. 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. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to her claims occurred in Bridgewater,

Somerset County, New Jersey, and at the Somerset County Jail (“SCJ”) from 2018 to the present. The Defendants listed by Plaintiff can be grouped into three categories: (1) defendants located or employed in New Jersey; (2) defendants located or employed in the Southern District of New York; and (3) defendants for whom Plaintiff does not provide sufficient information for the court to identify their location or the agency by which they are employed. The following Defendants are located or employed in New Jersey (the “New Jersey Defendants”): Somerset County Jail; Bridgewater, New Jersey Police Department; “CFG (medical @ SCJ)”; Somerset County Courthouse; “[s]everal Correction Officers from SCJ”; “[s]everal nurses from CFG (all)”; and “[s]everal officers from Bridgewater Police Department.” (ECF 1, at 1, 7.) Defendants “Rikers Island Medical & Mental Hea[l]th” and “[s]everal officers at Riker’s Island” are located or employed in New York. Plaintiff does not identify the location, employer, or roles of Defendants Sgt. Anthony, Brian Pauli, Sgt. Lai, Officer Kochinski, and “[f]ormer [p]aid lawyer John Hooper.” (Id. at 7.) The complaint asserts claims arising from Plaintiff’s interactions with police officers in

Somerset County, her confinement in the SCJ, and what appear to be her ongoing criminal proceedings in Somerset County. Although Plaintiff names defendants associated with Rikers Island, she does not appear to allege facts about any events occurring at a facility on Rikers Island. DISCUSSION A. Severance of claims arising outside this District Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the joinder of claims and parties, respectively. Rule 18 permits a plaintiff to join as many claims as she has against a particular defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). By contrast, under Rule 20, a plaintiff may not pursue unrelated claims against multiple defendants. Deskovic v. City of Peekskill, 673 F. Supp. 2d 154, 167 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

Rule 20(a)(2) permits a plaintiff to join multiple defendants in one action if: (1) a right to relief is asserted against all of the defendants, or the claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions, and (2) questions of law or fact are common to all defendants. See id. Although courts have interpreted Rule 20(a) liberally to allow related claims to be tried within a single proceeding, Barr Rubber Products Co. v. Sun Rubber Co., 425 F.2d 1114, 1126-27 (2d Cir. 1970), “the mere allegation that Plaintiff was injured by all Defendants is not sufficient to join unrelated parties as defendants in the same lawsuit pursuant to Rule 20(a),” Deskovic, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 167. Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. In determining whether to sever a claim, courts consider “the two requirements of Rule 20 and additional factors, including (1) whether severance will serve judicial economy; (2) whether prejudice to the parties would be caused by severance; and

(3) whether the claims involve different witnesses and evidence.” Kehr v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 821, 826 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (relying on Laureano v. Goord, No. 06-CV-7845 (SHS) (RLE), 2007 WL 2826649, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2007)).

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Kehr Ex Rel. Kehr v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA
596 F. Supp. 2d 821 (S.D. New York, 2008)
DESKOVIC v. City of Peekskill
673 F. Supp. 2d 154 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Jones v. Town of East Haven
691 F.3d 72 (First Circuit, 2012)
Kalie v. Bank of America Corp.
297 F.R.D. 552 (S.D. New York, 2013)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Maina v. Somerset County Jail, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maina-v-somerset-county-jail-nysd-2024.