Usamah Sidberry v. New York City; New York City Department of Correction; Commissioner Lynell Maginley; John Doe Warden of West Facility; John Doe Warden of OBCC; Capt. Montague; C.O. Ferraro; C.O. Rivera; C.O. Cutler; C.O. Bailey; Jane Doe West Facility Clinical Physician; Capt. Williams; Capt. Morales; C.O. Hyde; C.O. High; All Other Unidentified Correctional Staff

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 26, 2025
Docket1:25-cv-06948
StatusUnknown

This text of Usamah Sidberry v. New York City; New York City Department of Correction; Commissioner Lynell Maginley; John Doe Warden of West Facility; John Doe Warden of OBCC; Capt. Montague; C.O. Ferraro; C.O. Rivera; C.O. Cutler; C.O. Bailey; Jane Doe West Facility Clinical Physician; Capt. Williams; Capt. Morales; C.O. Hyde; C.O. High; All Other Unidentified Correctional Staff (Usamah Sidberry v. New York City; New York City Department of Correction; Commissioner Lynell Maginley; John Doe Warden of West Facility; John Doe Warden of OBCC; Capt. Montague; C.O. Ferraro; C.O. Rivera; C.O. Cutler; C.O. Bailey; Jane Doe West Facility Clinical Physician; Capt. Williams; Capt. Morales; C.O. Hyde; C.O. High; All Other Unidentified Correctional Staff) 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
Usamah Sidberry v. New York City; New York City Department of Correction; Commissioner Lynell Maginley; John Doe Warden of West Facility; John Doe Warden of OBCC; Capt. Montague; C.O. Ferraro; C.O. Rivera; C.O. Cutler; C.O. Bailey; Jane Doe West Facility Clinical Physician; Capt. Williams; Capt. Morales; C.O. Hyde; C.O. High; All Other Unidentified Correctional Staff, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK USAMAH SIDBERRY, Plaintiff, -against- NEW YORK CITY; NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; COMMISSIONER LYNELL MAGINLEY; 25 Civ. 6948 (PAE) JOHN DOE WARDEN OF WEST FACILITY; JOHN DOE WARDEN OF OBCC; CAPT. ORDER OF SERVICE MONTAGUE; C.O. FERRARO; C.O. RIVERA; C.O. CUTLER; C.O. BAILEY; JANE DOE WEST FACILITY CLINICAL PHYSICIAN; CAPT. WILLIAMS; CAPT. MORALES; C.O. HYDE; C.O. HIGH; ALL OTHER UNIDENTIFIED CORRECTIONAL STAFF, Defendants. PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center (“OBCC”) on Rikers Island, brings this pro se pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to the conditions of his confinement and the use of excessive force against him. Construed liberally, plaintiff’s complaint also raises state law claims. By order dated September 23, 2025, Dkt. 3, the Court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without prepayment of fees.1 0F STANDARD OF REVIEW The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a

1 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). governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s in forma pauperis 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 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). DISCUSSION A. New York City Department of Correction In federal court, an entity’s capacity to be sued is generally determined by the law of the state where the court is located. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(3); Edwards v. Arocho, 125 F. 4th 336, 354 (2d Cir. 2024) (“A plaintiff cannot bring a claim against a municipal agency that does not have the capacity to be sued under its municipal charter.” (emphasis in original)). Under New York law, actions seeking the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the City and not in that of any agency, unless otherwise provided by state law. N.Y. City Charter ch. 17, § 396.

Accordingly, the New York City Department of Correction (“DOC”) does not have the power to sue and be sued in its own name. See N.Y. City Charter ch. 25, §§ 621-627 (describing structure and powers of the DOC); Echevarria v. Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 48 F. Supp. 2d 388, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (“[S]uits against the DOC are suits against a non-suable entity and are properly dismissed upon that basis.”). Plaintiff’s claims against the DOC must therefore be dismissed. B. Waivers of service The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the DOC and the New York City Law Department of this order. The Court requests that the following defendants waive service of summons: City of New York; DOC Commissioner Lynell Maginley-Liddie; OBCC Warden; West Facility Warden; Captains Montague, Williams, and Morales; and Correction Officers Ferraro, Rivera, Cutler, Bailey, Hyde, and High. C. Jane Doe Physician and Unidentified Correctional Staff 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). Because plaintiff’s complaint

supplies sufficient information to permit the DOC to identify Jane Doe Clinical Physician, who was on duty at West Facility on January 7, 2025, it is ordered that the New York City Law Department, which is the attorney for and agent of the DOC, shall ascertain the identity of the Jane Doe defendant whom plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where she may be served.2 1F The New York City Law Department must provide this information to plaintiff and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order. Plaintiff must thereafter file an amended complaint naming Jane Doe defendant within thirty days of receiving this information. The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original complaint. An amended complaint form 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 a USM-285 form with the address for the named Jane Doe defendant and deliver to the U. S. Marshals Service all documents necessary to effect service. Plaintiff also lists “All Other Unidentified Correctional Staff” as defendants in the caption of the complaint but does not otherwise plead facts in the complaint about these unidentified defendants. The Court therefore dismisses without prejudice plaintiff’s claims

2 If the Doe defendant is not a current or former DOC employee or official, but otherwise works or worked at a DOC facility, the New York City Law Department shall provide a residential address where she may be served. against “All Other Unidentified Correctional Staff” for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and because these defendants cannot be identified. D. 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 service of the complaint, defendants must serve responses to these standard discovery requests. In their responses, defendants must quote each request verbatim.3 2F E. Pro Bono Counsel Plaintiff has applied for the court to request pro bono counsel. The factors to be considered in ruling on an indigent litigant’s request for counsel include the merits of the case, plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and plaintiff’s ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F. 2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F. 2d 58, 60–62 (2d Cir. 1986). Of these, the merits are “[t]he factor which command[s] the most attention.” Cooper, 877 F. 2d at 172. Because it is too early in the proceedings for the Court to assess the merits of the action, plaintiff’s motion for counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date. CONCLUSION The Court dismisses plaintiff=s claims against the DOC because it lacks the capacity to be sued in the name of the agency and dismisses without prejudice his claims against “All Other

3 If plaintiff would like copies of these discovery requests before receiving the responses and does not have access to the website, plaintiff may request them from the Pro Se Intake Unit. Unidentified Correctional Staff” for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s motion for counsel, Dkt.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Usamah Sidberry v. New York City; New York City Department of Correction; Commissioner Lynell Maginley; John Doe Warden of West Facility; John Doe Warden of OBCC; Capt. Montague; C.O. Ferraro; C.O. Rivera; C.O. Cutler; C.O. Bailey; Jane Doe West Facility Clinical Physician; Capt. Williams; Capt. Morales; C.O. Hyde; C.O. High; All Other Unidentified Correctional Staff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/usamah-sidberry-v-new-york-city-new-york-city-department-of-correction-nysd-2025.