Megginson v. The City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 1, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-00051·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT BOC 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CAE EE MICHAEL E. MEGGINSON, Plaintiff, -against- 22-CV-51 (AJN) RIKERS ISLAND SECURITY OF AMKC; ORDER OF SERVICE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendants.

ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the Anna M. Kross Center (AMKC) on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was subjected to excessive force by seven correction officers. He alleges that the incident occurred at approximately 12:30 p.m. on December 19 or 20, 2021, at the AMKC “T-Post by main intake.” Plaintiff mentions that Correction Officer Roomer was involved in this incident, but he does not name her as a defendant. (ECF 2 § 5.) By order dated January 23, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).' 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 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

' 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).

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 Rikers Island Security of AMKC and the Department of Correction Plaintiff’s claims against Rikers Island Security of AMKC and the New York City Department of Correction must be dismissed because city agencies or departments do not have the capacity to be sued under New York law. See Omnipoint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Town of

LaGrange, 658 F. Supp. 2d 539, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“In New York, agencies of a municipality are not suable entities.”); Hall v. City of White Plains, 185 F. Supp. 2d 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“Under New York law, departments which are merely administrative arms of a municipality do not have a legal identity separate and apart from the municipality and cannot sue or be sued.”); see also N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 2 (“The term ‘municipal corporation,’ as used in this chapter, includes only a county, town, city and village.”). In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and clear intention to assert claims against the City of New York and C.O. Roomer, the Court construes the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York and C.O. Roomer, and directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of this action to replace DOC with the City of New York and C.O. Roomer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses the City of New York and C.O. Roomer may wish to assert. B. Waiver of Service

The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of this order. The Court requests that the City of New York and C.O. Roomer waive service of summons. C. Unidentified 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 City Department of Correction to identify the correction officers who allegedly assaulted Plaintiff with a chemical agent and batons at approximately 12:30 p.m. on December 19 or 20, 2021, at the AMKC “T-Post by main intake.” (ECF 2 § 5.) It is therefore ordered that the New York City Law Department, which is the attorney for

and agent of the New York City Department of Correction, must ascertain the identity and badge number of each John Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where the defendant may be served.2 The New York City Law Department must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order.

2 If the Doe defendant is a current or former DOC employee or official, the New York City 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, Within thirty days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the John 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. Once Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue an order asking Defendants to waive service.

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

Megginson v. The City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Megginson v. The City of New York (Megginson v. The City 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)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange
658 F. Supp. 2d 539 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Hall v. City of White Plains
185 F. Supp. 2d 293 (S.D. New York, 2002)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)