Tearre Williams v. Green Haven C.F.; Nurse Practitioner; Mr. Perez; Mr. Hindsbeck; Mr. Cuello

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 1, 2025
Docket1:25-cv-06859
StatusUnknown

This text of Tearre Williams v. Green Haven C.F.; Nurse Practitioner; Mr. Perez; Mr. Hindsbeck; Mr. Cuello (Tearre Williams v. Green Haven C.F.; Nurse Practitioner; Mr. Perez; Mr. Hindsbeck; Mr. Cuello) 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
Tearre Williams v. Green Haven C.F.; Nurse Practitioner; Mr. Perez; Mr. Hindsbeck; Mr. Cuello, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TEARRE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-6859 (LLS) GREEN HAVEN C.F.; NURSE ORDER TO AMEND PRACTITIONER; MR. PEREZ; MR. HINDSBECK; MR. CUELLO, Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility, brings this action, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his rights when he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. Plaintiff paid the filing fees to bring this action. 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 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 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. § 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. 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. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this civil rights action under Section 1983 against Green Haven Correctional Facility, an unidentified nurse practitioner at Green Haven, Green Haven Lieutenants Perez and Hindsbeck, and Green Haven Sergeant Cuello. The following allegations are drawn from the complaint, which consists of single- sentence statements on the court’s civil rights complaint form.1 Plaintiff alleges, “I was extracted and denied seizure med and high blood pressive meds and gang assaulted and called a nigger.”

(ECF 1, at 4.) The nurse practitioner “discontinue[d]” Plaintiff’s medication from January 6, 2025, to February 8, 2025. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a seizure and had headaches because he did not have his medication. He also alleges that he was “jump[ed] by C.O.’s.” (Id. at 5.)

1 Plaintiff writes using irregular capitalization. For readability, the Court uses standard capitalization when quoting from the complaint. All other spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the complaint unless otherwise noted. For relief, Plaintiff seeks money damages and an order that he be “remove[d] from R.R.U.”2 (Id. at 6.) DISCUSSION A. Rule 8 Although pro se litigants enjoy the Court’s “special solicitude,” Ruotolo v. I.R.S., 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994) (per curiam), their pleadings 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. A complaint states a claim for relief if the claim is plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To review a complaint for plausibility, the court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the pleader’s favor. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). But the court need not accept “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially legal conclusions. Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). As set forth in Iqbal: [T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully- harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.

2 “R.R.U.” is likely an acronym for the Residential Rehabilitation Unit. According to the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), R.R.U. “is a separate housing unit used for therapy, treatment, and rehabilitative programming of incarcerated individuals who have been determined to require more than 15 days of disciplinary confinement pursuant to Department proceedings.” See DOCCS, Residential Rehabilitation Unit Program Manual, at 1, available at https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/01/rrupm.pdf. Id. (internal citations, quotation marks, and alteration omitted). 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. Here, Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8 because his allegations do not suggest a viable claim against any of the defendants. Plaintiff sues three correction officials, but

he does not allege any facts describing how they were involved in the events giving rise to his claims. Nor does Plaintiff allege any factual context for his one-sentence allegations. For example, he does not allege where or when the alleged events occurred, or any facts describing what happened and how his rights were violated. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 and the standards set forth below. B. Claims against Green Haven Plaintiff brings claims against Green Haven Correctional Facility. However, Green Haven is not a “person” for purposes of Section 1983, and is therefore not a proper defendant in a Section 1983 action. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state is not a

“person” for the purpose of Section 1983 claims); Zuckerman v. Appellate Div., Second Dep’t Sup. Ct., 421 F.2d 625, 626 (2d Cir. 1970) (court 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 is not a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983).

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

Related

Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Hathaway v. Coughlin
99 F.3d 550 (Second Circuit, 1996)
Chance v. Armstrong
143 F.3d 698 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Walker v. Schult
717 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Wright v. Goord
554 F.3d 255 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Kingsley v. Hendrickson
576 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court, 2015)
Darnell v. City of New York
849 F.3d 17 (Second Circuit, 2017)
Charles v. Orange County
925 F.3d 73 (Second Circuit, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tearre Williams v. Green Haven C.F.; Nurse Practitioner; Mr. Perez; Mr. Hindsbeck; Mr. Cuello, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tearre-williams-v-green-haven-cf-nurse-practitioner-mr-perez-mr-nysd-2025.