Brown v. Rensselaer County Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JACINDA BROWN,

Plaintiff,

1:22-CV-1391

V. (BKS/DJS)

RENSSELAER COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant.

APPEARANCES:

JACINDA BROWN

Plaintiff, Pro Se

Brooklyn, New York 11218

DANIEL J. STEWART

United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

The Clerk has forwarded for review a civil complaint filed by Plaintiff. Dkt. No.

2, Compl. Originally commenced in the Southern District of New York, this case was

transferred to this Court. Dkt. No. 5. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee but submitted

an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Dkt. No. 1, which was granted in

the Southern District. Dkt. No. 3. In transferring the case, the Southern District made no

assessment of the ability of the claim to proceed. See Dkt. No. 5.

_l-

I. SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT

A. Governing Legal Standard

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma

pauperis, “(2) .. . the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that

—...(B) the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).!_ Thus, even if a plaintiff meets the

financial criteria to commence an action in forma pauperis, it is the court’s responsibility

to determine whether the plaintiff may properly maintain the complaint that he filed in

this District before the court may permit the plaintiff to proceed with this action in forma

pauperis. See id.

In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court has a duty to show liberality toward pro

se litigants, see Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam), and should

exercise “extreme caution . . . in ordering sua sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint

«| before the adverse party has been served and both parties (but particularly the plaintiff)

have had an opportunity to respond.” Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir.

1983) (internal citations omitted). Therefore, a court should not dismiss a complaint if

' To determine whether an action is frivolous, a court must look to see whether the complaint “lacks an arguable

basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 SS 319, 325 (1989).

the plaintiff has stated “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

Although a court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable

to the plaintiff, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained

in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Jd. “Threadbare recitals of the

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts

do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the

complaint has alleged - but it has not show[n] - that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Jd.

at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

“demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

«#|Thus, a pleading that only “tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual

enhancement” will not suffice. /d. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

B. Analysis of the Complaint

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was formerly a corrections officer at

Defendant Rensselaer County Jail. The Complaint asserts discrimination claims under

-3-

Title VU, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and New York Human Rights Law. Compl. at pp. 3-4.

Plaintiff alleges discrimination based on race, color, sex, and national origin. /d. at p. 3.

Though not pled in great detail, Plaintiff alleges that she was subject to derogatory

comments, sexually suggestive comments, forced to work overtime despite having

seniority over male staff members, and was improperly suspended despite being subject

to Covid-19 quarantine requirements. See generally id. at p. 10.

The scope of review here is limited to whether Plaintiff has alleged an arguable

claim, not whether Plaintiff can ultimately prevail. The allegations set forth above are

minimally sufficient to arguably state a claim. Therefore, at this early stage of the

proceedings, the Complaint contains sufficient allegations to warrant a responsive

pleading from Defendant.* This Order does not address whether Plaintiff's Complaint

would be sufficient to avoid dismissal upon the filing of a proper motion.

II. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint be accepted for filing and that this case be

«| allowed to proceed; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk shall issue Summonses and forward them along with

a packet containing General Order 25, which sets forth the Civil Case Management Plan

2 The Court notes that the named Defendant is the Rensselaer County Jail. In responding to the Complaint, counsel

for Defendant should address whether the Jail itself is a proper party. See Rodriguez v. Favro, 2014 WL 4966918,

at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2014) (copy annexed hereto). 4.

used by the Northern District of New York, along with copies of the Complaint and this

Order to the United States Marshal for service upon Defendant; and it is further

ORDERED, that a response to the Complaint be filed by Defendant or

Defendant’s counsel as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure subsequent

to service of process on Defendant; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk is directed to schedule a Rule 16 Conference before

the assigned Magistrate Judge; and it is further

ORDERED, that all motions shall comply with the Local Rules of Practice of the

Northern District. In accordance with the Local Rules, Plaintiff must promptly notify

the Clerk’s Office and all parties or their counsel of any change in Plaintiff's

address; failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff in accordance

with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2023

Albany, New York

Z,

□ Gig et

US-Magistrate Judge

-5-

Based upon a careful review of the entire file

2014 WL 4966918 and the recommendations of the Magistrate

Only the Westlaw citation Judge, the Report-Recommendation is

is currently available. accepted in whole. See F—28 U.S.C. § 636(b)

United States District Court, (1).

N.D. New York.

Therefore, it is

Michael J. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff,

Vv. ORDERED that

Dave FAVRO, Clinton County Sheriff;

Major Smith, Jail Administrator; and 1. Plaintiff's claims against the Clinton County

Clinton County Jail, Defendants. Jail are DISMISSED;

No. 9:14-CV—0418 (DNH/DEP). 2. Clinton County is substituted as a defendant

Signed on 3. 2014 in place of Clinton County Jail;

Attorneys and Law Firms 3. Upon receipt from plaintiff of the documents

required for service of process, the Clerk shall

Michael J. Rodrigez, Plattsburgh, NY, pro se. issue summonses and forward them, along

with copies of the complaint, to the United

States Marshal for service upon the named

DECISION and ORDER defendants;

DAVID N. HURD, District Judge. 4. The Clerk forward a copy of the summons

and complaint in this action by mail to the

*1 Pro se plaintiff Michael J. Rodriguez County Attorney for Clinton County, together

brought this civil rights action pursuant witha copy of this Decision and Order;

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September

11, 2014, the Honorable David E. Peebles, 5. The defendants are directed to file a response

United States Magistrate Judge, advised by to the complaint as provided for in the Federal

Report-Recommendation that plaintiff's claims Rules of Civil Procedure following service of

against the Clinton County Jail be dismissed Process on the defendants;

and that Clinton County be substituted in

place of that defendant. No objections to 6. All pleadings, motions and other documents

the Report-Recommendation were filed. The ‘clating to this action be filed with the

ReportRecommendation sent to plaintiff at Clerk of the United States District Court,

his last known address was returned as Northern District of New York, 7th Floor,

undeliverable. Federal Building, 100 S. Clinton St., Syracuse,

New York 13261-7367. Any paper sent by

a party to the court or the clerk must be

accompanied by a certificate showing that a and the jail itself alleging deprivation of

true and correct copy of same was mailed his civil rights.' Plaintiffs complaint and

to all opposing parties or their counsel. accompanying application for leave to proceed

Any document received by the clerk or the _ jn forma pauperis (“IFP”) have been referred

court which does not include a certificate to me for review. Having considered plaintiff's

of service showing that a copy was served complaint and IFP application, I grant him

upon all opposing parties or their attorneys _ eave to proceed IFP and recommend that he be

will be returned, without processing. Plaintiff permitted to proceed with his claims against all

must comply with any requests by the Clerk's of the named defendants, with the exception of

Office for any documents that are necessary to the Clinton County Jail.

maintain this action. All parties must comply

with Local Rule 7.1 of the Northern District

of New York in filing motions, which must I. BACKGROUND

be returnable before the assigned district judge *2 On or about March 19, 2014, plaintiff

with proper allowance for notice as required by — submitted the complaint in this action, naming

the Rules. Plaintiffis also required to promptly the sheriff of Clinton County, identified as

notify the clerk's office and all parties or their | Dave Favro; Major Smith, a jail administrator;

counsel of any change in plaintiff's address; and the Clinton County Jail as defendants. Dkt.

his failure to do so will result in the dismissal No. 2 at 1-2. The complaint alleges that, on

of this action; and February 13, 2014, plaintiff, a Rastafarian, was

told that he is not permitted to wear his religious

7. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of head covering, or crown, during movement

this Decision and Order upon the parties in at the facility, visitation, recreation, and court

accordance with the Local Rules. visits. [d. at 3-4. Plaintiff contends that the

directive violates his First Amendment right

IT IS SO ORDERED. to freely exercise his chosen religion as a

Rastafarian. /d.

As originally filed in the Southern District

REPORT, RECOMMENDATION, oe

of New York, plaintiffs complaint was

AND ORDER .

accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed

DAVID E. PEEBLES, United States Magistrate IFP. Dkt. No. 1. Upon initial review of the

Judge. case in this district, following the transfer,

District Judge David N. Hurd determined that

Pro se plaintiff Michael J. Rodriguez, an plaintiff's IFP application was incomplete and

inmate currently confined in the Clinton accordingly denied the application, ordered

County Jail, located in Plattsburgh, New that the case be closed administratively, and

York, has commenced this action, pursuant afforded the plaintiff thirty days to either pay

to P42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Clinton the filing fee in full or submit a completed IFP

County Sheriff, an administrator at the jail, application with a signed inmate authorization

form. Dkt. No. 5. Upon receipt of a completed redress from a governmental entity or officer

inmate authorization form on April 24, 2014, or employee of a governmental entity,” and

the case was reopened and forwarded to me for _ the court must “identify cognizable claims or

review. Dkt. Nos. 6, 7. dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the

complaint, if the complaint ... is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

II. DISCUSSION relief may be granted; or ... seeks monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from

A. IEP Application such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also

When a civil action is commenced in a federal

district court, the statutory filing fee, set at $350 “Abbas v.. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d

at the time plaintiff filed his complaint, must Cir.2007) (“We have found both sections [1915

. 3 and 1915A] applicable to prisoner proceedings

ordinarily be paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).“ A.

Co in forma pauperis.” ).

court is authorized, however, to permit a litigant

to proceed IFP if it determines that he is unable *3 In deciding whether a complaint states

to pay the required filing fee. [28 U.S.C. § 4 colorable claim, a court must extend a

1915(a)(1). In this instance, becauseI conclude certain measure of deference in favor of pro

that plaintiff now meets the requirements for litigants, Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605,

IFP status, his application for leave to proceed 696 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam), and extreme

IFP is granted. ° caution should be exercised in ordering sua

sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint

before the adverse party has been served

B. Sufficiency of Plaintiff's Complaint and the parties have had an opportunity to

1. Standard of Review address the sufficiency of plaintiff's allegations,

Because I have found that plaintiff meets the Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37, 41

financial criteria for commencing this case IFP, (2d Cir.1983). However, the court also has

I must next consider the sufficiency of the 2 overarching obligation to determine that a

4. oo claim is not legally frivolous before permitting

claims set forth in his complaint in light of □□ □□

a pro se plaintiffs complaint to proceed.

§ 1915(e). Section 1915(e) directs See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh St.

that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, Jenanis Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363 (2d Cir.2000)

“the court shall dismiss the case at any time (holding that a district court may sua sponte

if the court determines that ... the action ... (i) dismiss a frivolous complaint, notwithstanding

is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a the fact that the plaintiff paid the statutory filing

claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) fee), “Legal frivolity ... occurs where ‘the claim

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who ig based on an indisputably meritless legal

is immune from such relief.” U.S.C. § — theory [such as] when either the claim lacks an

1915(e)(2)(B). Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) — arguable basis in law, or a dispositive defense

directs a court to review any “complaint clearly exists on the face of the complaint.’

in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks ‘Aguilar v. United States, Nos. 99-MC-

0304, 99-MC0408, 1999 WL 1067841, at *2 claims against defendant Nassau County Jail

(D.Conn. Nov. 8, 1999) (quoting P2Zivingston because it “is an administrative arm of Nassau

y, Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434,437 □ County, without a legal identity separate and

(2d Cir.1998)); see also F-Neitzke v. Williams, apart from the County”); see also Hoisington

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[D]ismissal is v. Cnty. of Sullivan, 55 F.Supp.2d 212, 214

(S.D.N.Y.1999) (“Under New York Law, a

proper only if the legal theory ... or factual ,

department of a municipal entity is merely a

contentions lack an arguable basis.”); [Pino sandivision of the municipality and has no

Ryan, 49 F.3d. 51, 53 (2d Cir.1995) (“[ T]he separate legal existence. Therefore, municipal

decision that a complaint is based on an departments like the Department of Social

indisputably meritless legal theory, for the Services are not amenable to suit, and no claims

purposes of dismissal under !~section 1915(d), lie directly against the Department.” (citations

may be based upon a defense that appears on —_omitted)). For this reason, I recommend that

the face of the complaint.”). the claim asserted against defendant Clinton

County Jail be dismissed. In deference to

plaintiff's pro se status, however, I recommend

2. Analysis that the court sua sponte substitute Clinton

Plaintiffs complaint asserts that defendants County as a defendant in the place of the

have deprived him of his right to freely

exercise his chosen religion. Dkt. No. 2 at 3-4. Clinton County Jail.

Mindful of the Second Circuit's instruction to

liberally construe a pro se plaintiff's pleading, ttt suasMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, — *4 Plaintiff's IFP application, which is now

191 (2d Cir.2008), I find that plaintiff should be complete, will be granted. Having reviewed

permitted to pursue his First Amendment claim plaintiff's complaint, I recommend that it be

to the extent it is asserted against defendants approved for filing and for the issuance of

Favro and Smith. In so ruling, I express no summonses, subject to dismissal of plaintiff's

opinion as to whether plaintiff's claims can claims against the Clinton County Jail and

withstand a properly filed motion to dismiss or substitution of Clinton County in its place.

for summary judgment.

Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby

Plaintiff's First Amendment claim asserted

against defendant Clinton County Jail, ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave

however, is legally deficient. It is well to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1) is

established that a correctional facility, such GRANTED; and it is further

as the Clinton County Jail, cannot be

independently sued because it is not a distinct ORDERED that the clerk provide the

legal entity. See O@ukes v. Nassau Cnty. superintendent of the Clinton County Jail,

Jail, No. 12-CV—1139, 2012 WL 1965663, designated by plaintiff as his current location,

at *2 (N.D.N.Y. May 29, 2012) (dismissing with a copy of plaintiffs authorization form

(Dkt. No. 6), and notify the official that this a party to the court or the clerk must be

action has been filed and that plaintiff is accompanied by a certificate showing that a

required the pay the Northern District of New «true and correct copy of same was mailed

York the entire statutory filing fee of $350 to all opposing parties or their counsel.

pursuant tol!28 U.S.C. § 1915; anditis further 4”y document received by the clerk or the

court which does not include a certificate

ORDERED that the clerk provide a copy of of service showing that a copy was served

plaintiff's authorization form (Dkt. No.6)tothe “Pon all opposing parties or their attorneys

financial deputy of the clerk's office; and it is will be returned, without processing. Plaintiff

further respectfully must comply with any requests by the Clerk's

Office for any documents that are necessary to

RECOMMENDED | that plaintiffs claims maintain this action. All parties must comply

against the Clinton County Jail be dismissed With Local Rule 7.1 of the Northern District

and that Clinton County be substituted in place of New York in filing motions, which must

of that defendant; and it is further hereby be returnable before the assigned district judge

with proper allowance for notice as required by

RECOMMENDED that, upon adoption of the Rules. Plaintiffis also required to promptly

this report and recommendation, the clerk be “0t#fy the clerk's office and all parties or their

directed to issue summonses and forward them, Counsel of any change in plaintiff's address;

along with copies of the complaint, to the his failure to do so will result in the dismissal

United States Marshal for service upon the this action; and it is further

named defendants and that the clerk forward

a copy of the summons and complaint in this *5 NOTICE: Pursuant to [28 U.S.C. §

action by mail to the County Attorney for 636(b)(1), the parties may lodge written

Clinton County, together with a copy of the objections to the foregoing report. Such

court's final decision and order; and itis further objections must be filed with the clerk of

the court within FOURTEEN days of service

RECOMMENDED that the defendants be of this report. FAILURE TO SO OBJECT

directed to file a response to the complaint TO THIS REPORT WILL PRECLUDE

as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil ,AppELLATE REVIEW. [228 U.S.C. § 636(b)

Procedure following service of process on the (1); Fed. R.Civ.P. 6(a), 6(d), 72; PBRoldan □□

defendants; and it is further hereby Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir.1993).

RECOMMENDED that the court order all It is hereby ORDERED that the clerk

pleadings, motions and other documents

. of the court serve a copy of this report

relating to this action be filed with the and recommendation upon the parties in

Clerk of the United States District Court, .

, accordance with this court's local rules.

Northern District of New York, 7th Floor,

Federal Building, 100 S. Clinton St., Syracuse,

New York 13261-7367. Any paper sent by Filed Sept. 11, 2014.

All Citations

Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2014 WL 4966918

Footnotes

1 This action was initially filed in the Southern District of New York but was

subsequently transferred to this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Dkt. No. 3.

2 Effective May 1, 2013, the Judicial Conference increased the fee for commencing

an action in a federal district court from $350 to $400 by adding a $50 administrative

fee.

3 Plaintiff is reminded that, although his IFP application has been granted, he will still

be required to pay fees that he incurs in this action, including copying and/or witness

fees.

4 It is well-settled that a municipality, such as Clinton County, may not be liable

pursuant to section 1983 under the theory of respondeat superior. Monell v. Dep't

of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). In order to hold Clinton County liable under

section 1983, plaintiffs complaint must allege sufficient facts to plausibly allege

that the individual defendants’ unconstitutional actions were taken pursuant to an

official municipal policy, custom, or practice. Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91; see also

Vann v. City of N.Y., 72 F.3d 1040, 1049 (2d Cir.1995). Because it is unclear

from a reading of plaintiff's complaint whether he has alleged that the instructions

given to him regarding the wearing of head coverings was pursuant to a county

policy, custom or practice, and in deference to his pro se status, | recommend that

Clinton County be named as a defendant. Again, in rendering this recommendation,

| express no opinion as to whether plaintiff's claims against the County can withstand

a properly filed motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.

End of Document © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.