Valentine v. Westchester County

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 29, 2019·No. 7:19-cv-02526·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VASHAWN VALENTINE, Plaintiff, -against- 19-CV-2526 (LLS) WESTCHESTER COUNTY; WESTCHESTER ORDER TO AMEND COUNTY OF CORRECTIONALS; NEW ROCHELLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Franklin Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his rights by arresting and detaining him.1 By order dated May 21, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis.2 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, 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 when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any

1 Plaintiff initially filed this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On March 11, 2019, Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall of the Eastern District transferred the case to this Court. See Valentine v. Westchester Cnty., No. 19-CV-0884 (LDH) (PK) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2019). 2 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). 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, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the complaint: on April 3, 2017, Police Officer John Doe from the New Rochelle Police Department stopped Plaintiff and asked him where he was coming from. After Plaintiff stated that he was coming from a friend’s house, Officer Doe arrested Plaintiff. When Plaintiff asked him why, Officer Doe stated that a complaint had been made. After his arrest, Plaintiff was detained at the county jail, and for six months, went back and forth to court proceedings. The Government repeatedly delayed the state-court proceedings because it was not ready to ask for a felony hearing. The judge eventually dismissed the criminal case against Plaintiff. Plaintiff brings this action against Westchester County, “Westchester County of Correctional,” the New Rochelle Police Department, and Jane and John Does from the

Westchester County Correctional Facility. He seeks monetary damages and “would like the courts to help [him] get back what was taken from [him].” (Compl. at 5.) DISCUSSION A. “Westchester County of Correctionals” and New Rochelle Police Department Plaintiff brings this action challenging the validity of his arrest and detention. He asserts claims against “Westchester County of Correctionals,” which the Court presumes is actually Westchester County Department of Correction (WCDOC), and the New Rochelle Police Department. But Plaintiff’s claims against these two entities must be dismissed because WCDOC and the New Rochelle Police Department lack the capacity to be sued in their own names. Under New York law, city agencies or departments do not have the capacity to be sued. 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.”). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against WCDOC and the New Rochelle Police Department must be brought against Westchester County and the City of New Rochelle respectively. Plaintiff names Westchester County as a defendant in this action. In light of his pro se status and clear intention to assert claims against the City of New Rochelle, the Court construes the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New Rochelle, and directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of this action to replace the New Rochelle Police Department with the City of New Rochelle. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. This amendment is without prejudice to any

defenses the City of New Rochelle may wish to assert. B. Westchester County and City of New Rochelle When a plaintiff sues a municipality under § 1983, it is not enough for the plaintiff to allege that one of the municipality’s employees or agents engaged in some wrongdoing. The plaintiff must show that the municipality itself caused the violation of the plaintiff’s rights. See Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011) (“A municipality or other local government may be liable under this section [1983] if the governmental body itself ‘subjects’ a person to a deprivation of rights or ‘causes’ a person ‘to be subjected’ to such deprivation.”) (quoting Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978)); Cash v. Cnty. of Erie, 654 F.3d 324, 333 (2d Cir. 2011). In other words, to state a § 1983 claim against a municipality, the plaintiff must allege facts showing (1) the existence of a municipal policy, custom, or practice, and (2) that the policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Jones v. Town of East Haven, 691 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2012); Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997) (internal citations omitted).

Plaintiff does not allege any facts suggesting that his rights were violated by Westchester County. He challenges the validity of his arrest and detention, but he simply asserts that he was detained at WCDOC while his criminal proceedings were pending. Plaintiff’s detention at WCDOC alone is insufficient to state a claim that Westchester County has a custom, policy, or practice that violated his rights.

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

Valentine v. Westchester County, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Valentine v. Westchester County (Valentine v. Westchester County) — 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)
Weyant v. Okst
101 F.3d 845 (Second Circuit, 1996)
Boyd v. City of New York
336 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 2003)
Jenkins v. City Of New York
478 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Liranzo v. United States
690 F.3d 78 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange
658 F. Supp. 2d 539 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Cash v. County of Erie
654 F.3d 324 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Hall v. City of White Plains
185 F. Supp. 2d 293 (S.D. New York, 2002)
Manuel v. City of Joliet
580 U.S. 357 (Supreme Court, 2017)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Connick v. Thompson
179 L. Ed. 2d 417 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Jones v. Town of East Haven
691 F.3d 72 (First Circuit, 2012)
Lanning v. City of Glens Falls
908 F.3d 19 (Second Circuit, 2018)