Stratton v. Narcise

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 6, 2023
Docket7:23-cv-02152
StatusUnknown

This text of Stratton v. Narcise (Stratton v. Narcise) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stratton v. Narcise, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CARRIME L. STRATTON, Plaintiff, No. 23-CV-2152 (KMK) v. ORDER OF SERVICE OFFICER NARCISE 487; ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; ROBERTS 206, Defendants. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Carrime L. Stratton (“Plaintiff”), who appears pro se and is presently held in the Orange County Jail, brings this Action asserting claims of violations of his federal constitutional rights as well as claims under state law. He seeks unspecified damages and other unspecified relief, and sues: (1) Orange County Correction Officer Narcise (“Narcise”); (2) the Orange County Sherriff’s Department (“OCSD”); and (3) Orange County Correction Officer Roberts (“Roberts”). (See generally Compl. (Dkt. No. 1).) The Court construes Plaintiff’s Complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as claims under state law.1 By Order dated March 15, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”).2 For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses the claims against the OCSD and adds the County of Orange as a defendant. The Court directs service of the Complaint and the March 21 Letter on the County of Orange and

1 The Court construes Plaintiff’s letter (“the March 21 Letter”) filed after his complaint as a supplement to his Complaint. (See Letter from Carrime L. Stratton to Court (March 21, 2023) (“Pl’s Letter”) (Dkt. No. 5).) 2 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). Defendants Narcise and Roberts, and directs those Defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2. I. Discussion A. The OCSD The Court must dismiss the claims against the OCSD because a municipal agency or department, such as the OCSD, does not have the capacity to be sued under New York law. See

Omnipoint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange, 658 F. Supp. 2d 539, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“In New York, agencies of a municipality are not suable entities.”); Hall v. City of White Plains, 185 F. Supp. 2d 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“Under New York law, departments which are merely administrative arms of a municipality do not have a legal identity separate and apart from the municipality and cannot sue or be sued.”); see also N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 2 (“The term ‘municipal corporation,’ as used in this chapter, includes only a county, town, city and village.”). In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and clear intention to assert claims against the County of Orange, the Court construes the complaint as asserting claims against the County of Orange, dismisses the claims against the OCSD, and directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of

this Action to replace the OCSD with the County of Orange as a Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (The court may, on its own motion, at any time, “on just terms, add or drop a party.”). This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses the County of Orange may wish to assert. B. Service on the County of Orange and Defendants Narcise and Roberts 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.3 Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d. 119, 123 n.6

3 Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that a summons be served within 90 days of the date a complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served summonses, the Complaint, and the March 21 Letter until the Court (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 Marshals Service to serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP). To allow Plaintiff to effect service of the Complaint and the March 21 Letter on the

County of Orange and Defendants Narcise and Roberts 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 each of those Defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue a summons for each of those Defendants and deliver to the Marshals Service all the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service of the Complaint and the March 21 Letter upon those Defendants. If the Complaint and the March 21 Letter are not served on those Defendants 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) (holding that it is the 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. C. Local Civil Rule 33.2 Local Civil Rule 33.2, which requires Defendants in certain types of prisoner cases to respond to specific, Court-ordered discovery requests, applies to this Action. Those discovery requests are available on the Court’s website under “Forms” and are titled “Plaintiff’s Local Civil Rule 33.2 Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.” Within 120 days of

reviewed the Complaint and the March 21 Letter and ordered that summonses be issued. The Court therefore extends the time to serve until 90 days after the date that summonses are issued. service of the Complaint and the March 21 Letter, the County of Orange and Defendants Narcise and Roberts must serve responses to those standard discovery requests. In their responses, those Defendants must quote each request verbatim.4 D. New York Legal Assistance Group Plaintiff may consult the legal clinic opened in this judicial district to assist people who

are parties in civil cases, but who do not have lawyers. The clinic is operated by a private organization called the New York Legal Assistance Group (“NYLAG”); it is not part of, or operated by, the Court (and, among other things, therefore, it cannot accept filings on behalf of the Court, which must still be filed by a pro se party in the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit). To receive limited-scope assistance from the clinic, Plaintiff may mail a signed retainer and intake form to the NYLAG Pro Se Clinic at 40 Foley Square, LL22, New York, New York 10007. Once the paperwork is received, the clinic will coordinate contact with the litigant. Once received, it may take up to two weeks for the clinic to contact the litigant. Copies of the clinic’s flyer, retainer, and intake form are attached to this order. II. Conclusion

The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail an information package to Plaintiff. The Court also dismisses the claims against the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, and directs the Clerk of Court to add the County of Orange as a Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Meilleur v. Strong
682 F.3d 56 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange
658 F. Supp. 2d 539 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Hall v. City of White Plains
185 F. Supp. 2d 293 (S.D. New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Stratton v. Narcise, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stratton-v-narcise-nysd-2023.