Pearson v. Wellpath Health Services

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 28, 2024·No. 7:24-cv-01714·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROBERT PEARSON, Plaintiff, -v.- 24-CV-1714 (KMK) WELLPATH HEALTH SERVICES; ORANGE COUNTY JAIL; ALL OF THE NURSES THAT ORDER OF SERVICE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS; ALL OF THE C.O.’S OFFICERS THAT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS, Defendants. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who was detained at Orange County Jail (“OCJ”), brings this Action, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. By Order dated May 29, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. (Dkt. No. 7.)1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) directs the Clerk of Court, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to replace Defendant Orange County Jail with Defendant Orange County, and add as Defendants John Doe Nurse, John Doe Emergency Response Team (“E.R.T.”) Officer 1, John Doe E.R.T. Officer 2, John Doe Sergeant, and John Doe Lieutenant; (2) directs Orange County, under Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997), to assist Plaintiff in identifying John Doe Nurse, John Doe E.R.T. Officers 1 and 2, John Doe Sergeant, and John Doe Lieutenant; and (3) directs service on Wellpath Medical Services and Orange County.

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). 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 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. Federal 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. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 2 action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible—not merely possible—that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. DISCUSSION A. Claims against Orange County Jail Because Plaintiff’s alleges that Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights, his

federal claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, Plaintiff may not assert claims under Section 1983 against Orange County Jail. 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. Orange County Jail is not a “person” within the meaning of Section 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 Section 1983); Marsden v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 856 F. Supp. 832, 836 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 1994) (Orange County Jail is not suable under Section 1983). The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the Orange County Jail for failure to state a claim on which relief may

be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and likely intention to assert claims against Orange County, the Court construes the Complaint as asserting claims against Orange County, and directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of this action to replace Orange County Jail with Orange County. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses Orange County may wish to assert.

3 B. Claims against “All the nurses that had something to do with this” and “All the C.O. officers that had something to do with this” Throughout the Complaint, Plaintiff references several John and Jane Doe prison personnel including a nurse, E.R.T. officers, a sergeant, and a lieutenant whom he alleges were personally involved in the events giving rise to his claims. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. No. 1).) Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court, on its own motion, “may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Fed R. Civ. P. 21; see Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich, Ltd., 118 F. Supp 3d 591, 618-19 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (Rule 21 “afford[s] courts discretion to shape litigation in the interests of efficiency and justice.”). Under this rule, courts have added an individual as a defendant in an action, though that individual is not named as a

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

Pearson v. Wellpath Health Services, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pearson v. Wellpath Health Services (Pearson v. Wellpath Health Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
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)
Marsden v. Federal B.O.P.
856 F. Supp. 832 (S.D. New York, 1994)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)