Philips v. Valhalla County Jail

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 30, 2019·No. 7:19-cv-02019·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TROY PHILIPS, Plaintiff, -against- 19-CV-2019 (CS) VALHALLA COUNTY JAIL; VALHALLA ORDER OF SERVICE COUNTY JAIL STAFF; GEORGE LONGWORTH; KEVIN CHEVERKO, Defendants.

CATHY SEIBEL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Coxsackie Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, while he was detained in the Westchester County Jail, Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By order dated April 24, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis.’ STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, 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(¢)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). 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,”

' Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). DISCUSSION A. Valhalla County Jail and Valhalla County Jail Staff Plaintiff indicates in his complaint that he was detained in a facility located at 10 Woods Road, Valhalla, New York. This is the address of the Westchester County Jail, and the Court therefore construes Plaintiff’s allegations as asserting claims against staff at the Westchester County Jail. Plaintiff’s claims against the Jail and Jail Staff, however, must be dismissed. 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. Valhalla County Jail and Valhalla County Jail Staff are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983. See generally Will vy. Mich. Dep t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state is not a “person” for the purpose of § 1983 claims); Zuckerman v. Appellate Div. Second Dep't Supreme Court, 421 F.2d 625, 626 (2d Cir. 1970) (court not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983), Whitley v. Westchester Cnty. Corr, Fac. Admin., No. 97-CV-420 (SS), 1997 WL 659100, at *7 (S.D.N.¥. Oct. 22, 1997) (correctional facility or jail not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983). Therefore, Plaintiff's claims against Valhalla County Jail and Valhalla County Jail Staff are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B\ii).?

2 Plaintiff may have meant to sue the County of Westchester, but he does not allege facts suggesting a policy or custom that might render the County liable for the alleged constitutional violations of its employees. See Wray v. City of New York, 490 F.3d 189, 195 (2d Cir, 2007) (“[T]o hold a city liable under § 1983 for the unconstitutional actions of its employees, a plaintiff is required to plead and prove three elements: (1) an official policy or custom that (2) causes the

B. Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Plaintiff asserts that during the winter of 2016 and in 2017, correction officers at the Westchester County Jail used excessive force against him; denied him adequate medical care; placed him in cells the conditions of which violated his constitutional rights; and sexually harassed him. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed, under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to amend the caption of this action to add John/Jane Doe 1 - 10 as Defendants. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses that these Defendants may wish to assert. Cc. John/Jane Doe 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 information that is likely sufficient to permit the Westchester County Jail to identify the individuals involved in the alleged deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights during the winter of 2016 and in 2017. It is therefore ordered that the Westchester County Attorney’s Office, which is the attorney for and agent of the Westchester County Jail, ascertain the identity and badge number of each John/Jane Doe Defendant whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the addresses where these Defendants may be served. The Westchester County Attorney’s Office must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order. Within thirty days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the John/Tane Doe Defendants, The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original complaint. An amended complaint form that Plaintiff should complete ts attached to this order, Once Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended

plaintiff to be subjected to (3) a denial of a constitutional right.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original).

complaint and, if necessary, issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to complete the USM-285 forms with the addresses for the named John/Jane Doe Defendants and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. dD. Service on County Sheriff George Longworth and Commissioner of Corrections Kevin Cheverko 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. See Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)); § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process .. . in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ.

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

Philips v. Valhalla County Jail, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Philips v. Valhalla County Jail (Philips v. Valhalla County Jail) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related