Sowell v. The New York City Department of Homeless Services

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 11, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-05346·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RANDY SOWELL, Plaintiff, 23-CV-5346 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: On August 1, 2022, while Plaintiff Randy Sowell was incarcerated at the Vernon C. Bain Center (“VCBC”) on Rikers Island, he filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of himself and his minor daughter, D.D.S.S. See Sowell v. Annucci, ECF 1:22-CV-6538, 2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2024) (“Sowell I”). He alleged that Defendants violated his rights by refusing to discharge him from parole, and appeared to assert that he was housed at a Rikers Island facility with a prisoner who had an order of protection against him. On January 13, 2023, the Court directed Plaintiff to amend his complaint within 60 days, to address deficiencies in his pleadings. ECF 1:22-CV-6538, 6. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2023. ECF 1:22- CV-6538, 8. By order dated June 22, 2023, the Court: (1) severed Plaintiff’s unrelated claims from this action; (2) directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the claims arising from events that allegedly occurred in New Jersey to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; and (3) directed the Clerk of Court to open three new actions for the remaining severed claims. ECF 1:22-CV-6538, 11. This action is one of the actions opened pursuant to the Court’s June 22, 2023 order. By order dated June 27, 2023, the Court directed Plaintiff to pay the filing fees or submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff complied with the Court’s June 27, 2023 order on July 21, 2023. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.) On November 28, 2023, in Sowell I, the Clerk’s Office received a postcard from Plaintiff, indicating that Plaintiff “was extradited to New Jersey from Rikers Island.” ECF 1:22-CV-6538, 18. Plaintiff did not include a forwarding address, but public records maintained by the Cape May

County Sheriff’s Office indicated that Plaintiff was detained at the Cape May Correctional Facility. Because Plaintiff did not file a change of address in this case, by order dated February 28, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to update the Court, in writing, with his new address, and advised him that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed a change of address on March 5, 2024. (ECF No. 7.) By order dated May 20, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 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 of the claims raised. 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. 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 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. BACKGROUND In this action, Plaintiff seeks to assert claims against the New York City Department of Homeless Services (“DHS”) shelter staff and DHS police for allegedly violating his rights at

various shelters. The following facts are drawn from the complaint.1 Plaintiff’s parole officer forced him to reside at Bellevue Men’s Shelter, where Plaintiff had continuous issues with staff and DHS police, for which Plaintiff made numerous complaints. Plaintiff reported problems with being issued metro cards to report to parole. He also reported instances when his bed at the shelter was given to someone else because he missed curfew as a result of being held at the parole office from 11am until 8pm. Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred to Camba Atlantic, a

1 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless noted otherwise. shelter located in Brooklyn (Kings County), New York, where he was retaliated against because of his complaints against the Bellevue Men’s Shelter. He asserts that he had problems with being given metro cards to report to parole and public assistance offices which led to Plaintiff being assaulted by shelter staff and sprayed with pepper spray or mace by the DHS police. Plaintiff

alleges that, as a result of DHS’s abuse of authority and a Black female supervisor at Bellevue Men’s Shelter making false claims that he threatened her, Plaintiff was banned from Bellevue Men’s Shelter, and he resorted to sleeping in the Capital One Bank building in midtown Manhattan, where he became addicted to K2 and crystal methamphetamines during the height of the pandemic. DISCUSSION A. Claims against DHS Most agencies of the City of New York lack the capacity to be sued, and claims against New York City agencies generally must be asserted against the City of New York. N.Y. City Charter ch.

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

Sowell v. The New York City Department of Homeless Services, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Sowell v. The New York City Department of Homeless Services (Sowell v. The New York City Department of Homeless 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)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
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)
Emerson v. City of New York
740 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Cash v. County of Erie
654 F.3d 324 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Connick v. Thompson
179 L. Ed. 2d 417 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Jenkins v. City of New York
478 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Jones v. Town of East Haven
691 F.3d 72 (First Circuit, 2012)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)