Washington v. City of New York

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 26, 2019
Docket1:19-cv-00601
StatusUnknown

This text of Washington v. City of New York (Washington v. City of New York) 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
Washington v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GREGORY WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, 19-CV-0601 (CM) -against- ORDER TO AMEND NYS PAROLE; RIKERS ILSAND, Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was held in custody beyond the maximum expiration date of his parole. By order dated April 17, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis.1 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 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,”

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). 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 Plaintiff brings this action against “NYS Parole” and Rikers Island asserting that he was held in custody beyond the maximum expiration date of his parole. He seeks monetary damages. The following facts are taken from the complaint: with seventeen days left on his parole maximum expiration date — his parole was set to expire on October 21, 2017 — Plaintiff stopped reporting to parole. But on December 2, 2017, he was arrested for petty larceny — for which he eventually received time served — and on December 4, 2017, he was charged with parole violation. The final hearing on the parole violation charges against Plaintiff was held on December 29, 2017, and all charges against him were dismissed and the parole violation warrant lifted. Plaintiff contends that because he only had seventeen days left on his parole, his new parole maximum expiration date should have been December 21, 2017, seventeen days after issuance of the parole violation charges. But Plaintiff was not released from custody until January 10, 2018, because unnamed persons “disregarded the fact that [he] only had 17 days left on parole.” (Compl. at 5.) DISCUSSION A. Claims against New York State Division of Parole “TAs 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 § 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’ n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977); see also Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-71 (1989) (holding that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under § 1983). Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the New York State Division of Parole (identified as “NYS Parole”), a New York State agency, are therefore barred by the Eleventh

Amendment and are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). B. Claims against Rikers Island Plaintiff’s claims against Rikers Island, a facility within the New York City Department of Correction (DOC), must 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. Rikers Island is not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. See generally Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state is not a “person” for the purpose of § 1983 claims); 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). Even if the Court were to construe Plaintiff’s assertion against Rikers Island as a claim against DOC, it must still be dismissed because an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued. N.Y. City Charter ch. 17, § 396 (“[A]ll actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law.”); Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Emerson v. City of New York, 740 F. Supp. 2d 385, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“[A] plaintiff is generally prohibited from suing a municipal agency.”). In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and clear intention to assert claims against the City of New York, the Court construes the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York, and directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of this action to replace Rikers Island with the City of New York. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses the City of New York may wish to assert.

But Plaintiff fails to plead facts suggesting that the City of New York would be liable for a claim under § 1983. 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, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359 (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.

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)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Davidson v. Cannon
474 U.S. 344 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Jenkins v. City Of New York
478 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Brown v. Coughlin
704 F. Supp. 41 (S.D. New York, 1989)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Gollomp v. Spitzer
568 F.3d 355 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Emerson v. City of New York
740 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Peterson v. Tomaselli
469 F. Supp. 2d 146 (S.D. New York, 2007)
Cash v. County of Erie
654 F.3d 324 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Connick v. Thompson
179 L. Ed. 2d 417 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Jones v. Town of East Haven
691 F.3d 72 (First Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Washington v. City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-city-of-new-york-nysd-2019.