UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRANDON STERLING, Plaintiff, ~against- 20-CV-10804 (CS) THESTATEOFNEW YORK SORE | onpER OF SBRVICH AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION; FISHKILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, . Defendants.
CATHY SEIBEL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in the Sullivan County Jail, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, while he was incarcerated in Fishkill Correctional Facility, Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By order dated March 9, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).' STANDARD OF REVIE-W 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 ofa 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 y. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639
' 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).
(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. The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell At. 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. /d.
DISCUSSION A. The State of New York and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) Plaintiffs claims against the State of New York and DOCCS must be dismissed. “[A]s a general rule, state governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or unless Congress has abrogated the states’ Eleventh ‘Amendment immunity ....” Gollomp v, Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009). “The immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment extends beyond the states themselves to state agents and state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state.” Jd. New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir, 1977). Plaintiffs § 1983 claims against the State of New York and DOCCS are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) Gi). B. Fishkill Correctional Facility (Fishkill) Plaintiff’s claims against Fishkill must also 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. Fishkill Correctional Facility is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dept of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state is not a “person” for the purpose of § 1983 claims); Zuckerman y. Appellate Div. Second Dept 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.Y. Oct. 22, 1997) (correctional facility or jail not a “person” within the
meaning of § 1983). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim against Fishkill Correctional Facility is dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) Gi). Cc. Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Plaintiff asserts that “medical personnel at Fishkill Correctional Facility” failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment. Because Plaintiff fails to identify these individuals, 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 Does 1 - 5 as Defendants. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses that these Defendants may wish to assert. D. John Does I —5 Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance ftom the district court in identifying a defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRANDON STERLING, Plaintiff, ~against- 20-CV-10804 (CS) THESTATEOFNEW YORK SORE | onpER OF SBRVICH AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION; FISHKILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, . Defendants.
CATHY SEIBEL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in the Sullivan County Jail, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, while he was incarcerated in Fishkill Correctional Facility, Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By order dated March 9, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).' STANDARD OF REVIE-W 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 ofa 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 y. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639
' 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).
(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. The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell At. 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. /d.
DISCUSSION A. The State of New York and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) Plaintiffs claims against the State of New York and DOCCS must be dismissed. “[A]s a general rule, state governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or unless Congress has abrogated the states’ Eleventh ‘Amendment immunity ....” Gollomp v, Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009). “The immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment extends beyond the states themselves to state agents and state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state.” Jd. New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir, 1977). Plaintiffs § 1983 claims against the State of New York and DOCCS are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) Gi). B. Fishkill Correctional Facility (Fishkill) Plaintiff’s claims against Fishkill must also 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. Fishkill Correctional Facility is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dept of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state is not a “person” for the purpose of § 1983 claims); Zuckerman y. Appellate Div. Second Dept 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.Y. Oct. 22, 1997) (correctional facility or jail not a “person” within the
meaning of § 1983). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim against Fishkill Correctional Facility is dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) Gi). Cc. Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Plaintiff asserts that “medical personnel at Fishkill Correctional Facility” failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment. Because Plaintiff fails to identify these individuals, 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 Does 1 - 5 as Defendants. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses that these Defendants may wish to assert. D. John Does I —5 Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance ftom the district court in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit DOCCS to identify the medical personnel whom Plaintiff alleges failed to provide adequate medical care. It is therefore ordered that the New York State Attorney General, who is the attorney for and agent of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, must ascertain the identity of each John Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to
sue here and the addresses where these Defendants may be served. The New York State Attorney General 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 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 directing the Clerk of Court to complete the USM-285
forms with the addresses for the named John Doe Defendants and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package. The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the State of New York and DOCCS. See 28 US.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims against Fishkill. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)@i). The Clerk of Court is directed to add John Does | — 5 as Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order and the complaint to New York State Attorney General at: 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf Coppedge vy. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: 2 | ( White Plains, New York f Mh Lo / g CATHY SEIBEL United States District Judge
<".8.-"-0"-"“"“—— ES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CV Write the full name of each plaintiff. (Include case number if one has been 7 assigned) AMENDED against: COMPLAINT (Prisoner) Do you want a jury trial? TT Yes Cj No
Write the full name of each defendant. If you cannot fit the names of all of the defendants in the space provided, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed above must be identical to those contained in - Section lV.
NOTICE The public can access electronic court files. For privacy and security reasons, papers filed with the court should therefore not contain: an individual’s full social security number or full birth date; the full name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account number, A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of an individual’s birth; a minor’s initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.
Rev, 5/20/16
I. LEGAL BASIS FOR CLAIM State below the federal legal basis for your claim, if known. This form is designed primarily for prisoners challenging the constitutionality of their conditions of confinement; those claims are often brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 {against state, county, or municipal defendants) or in a “Bivens” action (against federal defendants). . U Violation of my federal constitutional rights [7 Other: Il. PLAINTIFF INFORMATION Each plaintiff must provide the following information. Attach additional pages if necessary.
- First Name Middle initial Last Name
State any other names (or different forms of your name) you have ever used, including any name you have used in previously filing a lawsuit.
re Prisoner ID # (if you have previously been in another agency's custody, please specify each agency and the ID number {such as your DIN or NYSID} under which you were held) ht Current Place of Detention
Institutional Address
County, City State Zip Code Ill. PRISONER STATUS indicate below whether you are a prisoner or other confined person: Pretrial detainee Civilly committed detainee C1 Immigration detainee Convicted and sentenced prisoner Other:
Page 2
IV, DEFENDANT INFORMATION To the best of your ability, provide the following information for each defendant. If the correct information is not provided, it could delay or prevent service of the complaint on the defendant. Make sure that the defendants listed below are identical to those listed in the caption. Attach additional pages as necessary. Defendant 1: First Name Last Name Shield # Current Job Title {or other identifying information) Current Work Address
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 2: First Name Last Name Shield # Current Job Title (or other identifying information)
Current Work Address County, City State Zip Code Defendant 3: First Name Last Name Shield # ep Current Job Title (or other identifying information)
Current Work Address
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 4: First Name Last Name Shield #
Current Job Title (or other identifying information) Current Work Address County, City State Zip Code
Page 3
V. STATEMENT OF CLAIM Place(s) of occurrence:
Date(s) of occurrence: FACTS: State here briefly the FACTS that support your case. Describe what happened, how you were harmed, and how each defendant was personally involved in the alleged wrongful actions. Attach additional pages as necessary.
a
i a a □ □ at ee ir
□
Page 4
ce a tt rt
Bn i
INJURIES: if you were injured as a result of these actions, describe your injuries and what medical treatment, _ if any, you required and received.
ge
oe ee a
Vi. RELIEF State briefly what money damages or other relief you want the court to order.
ee
i i rr
er
Page 5
VII. PLAINTIFF’S CERTIFICATION AND WARNINGS By signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that: (1) the complaint is not being presented for an improper purpose (such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation); (2) the claims are supported by existing law or by anonfrivolous argument to change existing law; (3) the factual contentions have * evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. I understand that if I file three or more cases while I am a prisoner that are dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, I may be denied in forma pauperis status in future cases. : Talso understand that prisoners must exhaust administrative procedures before filing an action in federal court about prison conditions, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and that my case may be dismissed if I have not exhausted administrative remedies as required. l agree to provide the Clerk's Office with any changes to my address. I understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may result in the dismissal of my case,
Each Plaintiff must sign and date the complaint. Attach additional pages if necessary. If seeking to proceed without prepayment of fees, each plaintiff must also submit an IFP application,
Dated Plaintiff's Signature pe First Name Middle Initial Last Name
Prison Address
County, City State Zip Code
Date on which 1 am delivering this complaint to prison authorities for mailing:
Page 6