Milhouse v. Hilton Garden Inn employees

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 10, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-02934·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : MUHAMMAD MILHOUSE, : : Plaintiff, : : 22 Civ. 2934 (JPC) -v- : : ORDER OF SERVICE NEW YORK CITY DHS DSS et al., : : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his rights. Plaintiff originally filed two complaints in this District that were opened as two new civil actions: Nos. 22 Civ. 2934 and 22 Civ. 2940. By Order dated May 4, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. By Order dated May 31, 2022, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed that Plaintiff’s two cases be consolidated and that all further filings are to be filed in the lead action under No. 22 Civ. 2934.1 Chief Judge Swain’s Order also directed Plaintiff to file one amended complaint in the lead case. The Court received Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint on July 27, 2022. The Amended Complaint names the following parties as Defendants: the City of New York; the New York City Department of Social Service (“DSS”); the New York City Department of Homeless Services (“DHS”); “Administrative Support”; “Cleaning and Sanitizing Housekeeping Staff”; John or Jane

1 The Order also advised Plaintiff that the higher numbered case, No. 22 Civ. 2940, will remain open for administrative purposes. Doe “Site Supervisor NYCDHSDSS-DHS Covid-19 Isolation Site”; John or Jane Doe “24/7 Operation Staff/Housekeeping”; John or Jane Doe “NYCDHSDSS Access Control/ ‘Building Ow[n]ers’ Security”; and John or Jane Doe “Nurse/Medical Staff (Isolation Site Essential Services).”

For the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against DSS, DHS, “Administrative Support,” and “Cleaning and Sanitizing Housekeeping Staff”; (2) directs service on the City of New York; and (3) directs the City of New York to help identify the John or Jane Doe “Site Supervisor” at the DHS Covid-19 isolation site at the Hilton Garden Inn. I. Standard of Review The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 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); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). 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 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). II. Discussion To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48- 49 (1988). A. Claims Against the DSS and the DHS Plaintiff’s claims against the DSS and the DHS must be dismissed because an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued. 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.”); accord Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 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.”). The Court, however, will construe Plaintiff’s claims against these entities as brought against the City of New York, which is also a named defendant. B. Claims Against “Administrative Support” and “Cleaning and Sanitizing Housekeeping Staff” The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against “Administrative Support” and “Cleaning and Sanitizing Housekeeping Staff” because generic employees or “staff” are not considered persons under Section 1983. See, e.g., Kerr v. Cook, No. 3:21-cv-93, 2021 WL 765023, at *4 (D. Conn. Feb. 26, 2021) (holding that correctional facility “medical staff” is a not person under section 1983); Connor v. Hurley, No. 00 Civ. 8354 (LTS), 2004 WL 885828, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2004) (holding that Green Haven Correctional Facility “ medical staff” is not a person under Section 1983); Ferguson v. Morgan, No. 90 Civ. 6318 (JSM), 1991 WL 115759, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 1991) (holding that claim against prison staff, without naming a particular person, did not name a person under section 1983). The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against these defendants for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). C. Service on the City of New York Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service.2 Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process . . . in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (the court must order the U.S. Marshals Service

to serve if a plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP)). To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant City of New York through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form (“USM-285 form”) for Defendant City of New York. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons and deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service upon Defendant City of New York. If the Amended Complaint is not served within 90 days after the date the summonses are issued, Plaintiff should request an extension of time for service. See Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2012) (explaining that it is a plaintiff’s responsibility to request an extension of time for service).

Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to do so. D. Valentin Order Under Valentin v.

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

Milhouse v. Hilton Garden Inn employees, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Milhouse v. Hilton Garden Inn employees (Milhouse v. Hilton Garden Inn employees) — 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)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Emerson v. City of New York
740 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Jenkins v. City of New York
478 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2007)