Opinion

Brown v. NYCDOC MDC

Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Filed: Apr 17, 2020
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 27.1%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SHAMONE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

-against- 20-CV-2144 (LLS)

WARDEN NYCDOC MDC; ORDERTO AMEND

CORRECTIONAL JOHN DOE OFFICER 1

& 2; CITY OF NEW YORK,

Defendants.

LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff, currently detained in the Otis Bantum Correctional Facility on Rikers Island,

brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that Defendants violated his federal

constitutional rights.By order datedApril 9, 2020,the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to

proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”).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 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. See28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s IFP

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

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been

granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1).

(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.

The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to

state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

570(2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the

Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing

the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals

of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550

U.S.at 555.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.

BACKGROUND

The following allegations are taken from the complaint. On or about May 8, 2019, three

inmates entered Plaintiff’s cell and rapedand physically assaulted him. The inmates forcibly

performed oral sex on Plaintiff, fondled him, and tried to “yank” his penis and testicles off. (ECF

No. 2, at 4.) He alleges that two correction officers –sued here as John Does –“left their post

and...allowed [the assault] to happen” to him. (Id.at 4.)

Plaintiff filed a notice of claim with the New York City Comptroller, but his claim was

denied for failure to comply with the statutory filing deadlines.2 (See id.at 15.)

He sues the Warden of MDC, two John Doe correction officers, and the City of New York

and seeks money damages.

DISCUSSION

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that:(1) a right

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was

violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487

U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988).

A. Claims Against the City of New York

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

2 Documents attached to the complaint indicate that Plaintiff submitted his notice of

claim on May 17, 2019. (Id.at 9.) By letter datedJune 17, 2019, the Comptroller’s office

rejected Plaintiff’s Notice of Claim because it was not served in compliance with General

Municipal Law 50-e. That letter stated that if Plaintiff wished to pursue his claim, he must file

his Notice of Claim by proper method of service within ten days of the date of the letter. (Id.at

11.) On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff resent thenotice of claim to the comptroller’s office via

certified mail. (Id.at 12.) By letter dated September 26, 2019, the Comptroller’s office denied

Plaintiff’s claim because it was not filed within 90 days of the date of the incident, as required by

the municipal law. (Id.at 15.)

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).

Here, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that his constitutional rights were violated by

a policy, practice, or custom of the City of New York. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s

§1983 claims against the City of New York. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

B. Failure to Protect

Prison officials are required to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of

prisoners, including protecting them from harm caused by other prisoners. See Farmer v.

Brennan,511 U.S. 825, 832-33(1994); Fischl v. Armitage, 128 F.3d 50, 55 (2d Cir. 1997). To

state a cognizable §1983 failure-to-protect claim, a prisoner must show that: (1) he is

incarcerated under conditions “posing a substantial risk of serious harm”; and (2) prison officials

acted with “deliberate indifference” to his safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832-33; see Hayes v.

N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr., 84 F.3d 614, 620 (2d Cir. 1996).

Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident.A pretrial detainee assertinga

failure-to-protect claim under the Due Process Clause must pleadtwo elements: (1)an

“objective” element, which requires a showing that the risk of harmis sufficiently serious, and

(2) a “mental” element, which requires a showing that the officer knew or should have known of

the risk of serious harm but acted with deliberate indifference to that risk.Darnell v. Pineiro, 849

F.3d 17, 29 (2d Cir. 2017).3 In other words, a pretrial detainee must allege facts suggesting the

defendants “acted intentionally to impose the alleged condition, or recklessly failed to act with

reasonable care to mitigate the risk that the condition posed to the pretrial detainee even though

the defendant-official knew, or should have known, that the condition posed an excessive risk to

health or safety.” Id.at 35. The mere negligence of a correctional official is not a basis for a

claim of a federal constitutional violation under §1983.See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327,

335-36 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 348 (1986).

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges only that the defendant correction officers “left their post”

and therefore “allowed” the assault to happen.(ECF No. 2, at 4.) Plaintiff does not allege any

facts showing that the correction officers “acted intentionally to impose” the risk of harm or

“recklessly failed to act with reasonable care to mitigate the risk.” Darnell,849 F.3d at 35. The

Court cannot infer from Plaintiff’s allegations that the correction officers were deliberately

indifferent to his safety by failing to take reasonable measures to protect him. He fails to set forth

any facts showing that the correction officers knew or should have known, before the attack

occurred, of a substantial risk of serious harm that the other inmates posedto Plaintiff, or that the

correction officers acted recklessly in failing to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm. Plaintiff

therefore fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff proceeds inthis matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts

generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its

3 “Although Darnell involved a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a prisoner’s

conditions of confinement, its holding applies with equal measure to failure to protect claims.”

Taylor v. City of New York, No. 16-CV-7857 (NRB), 2018 WL 1737626, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.

27, 2018).

defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir.

2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has

cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to

amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid

claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v.

USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). Because Plaintiff may be able to allege

additional facts to state a valid §1983 claim for failure-to-protect, the Court grants Plaintiff 60

days’ leave to amend his complaint to detail his claims.

First, Plaintiff must name as the defendant(s) in the caption4 and in the statement of claim

those individuals who were allegedlyinvolved in the deprivation of his federal rights. If Plaintiff

does not know the name of a defendant, he may refer to that individual as “John Doe” or “Jane

Doe” in both the caption and the body of the amended complaint.5The naming of John Doe

defendants, however, does not toll the three-year statute of limitations period governing this

action and Plaintiff shall be responsible for ascertaining the true identity of any “John Doe”

defendants and amending his complaint to include the identity of any “John Doe” defendants

before the statute of limitations period expires. Should Plaintiff seek to add a new claim or party

after the statute of limitations period has expired, he must meet the requirements of Rule 15(c) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4The caption is located on the front page of the complaint. Each individual defendant

must be named in the caption. Plaintiff may attach additional pages if there is not enough space

to list all of the defendants in the caption.If Plaintiff needs to attach an additional page to list all

defendants, he should write “see attached list” on the first page of the Amended Complaint. Any

defendants named in the caption must also be discussed in Plaintiff’s statement of claim.

5 For example, a defendant may be identified as: “Correction Officer John Doe #1 on

duty August 31, 2010, at Sullivan Correctional Facility, during the 7-3 p.m. shift.”

In the statement of claim, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the

relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant named in the amended complaint.

Plaintiff is also directed to provide the addresses for any named defendants. To the greatest

extent possible, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must:

a) give the names and titles of all relevant persons;

b) describe all relevant events, stating the facts that support Plaintiff’s case including

what each defendant did or failed to do;

c) give the dates and times of each relevant event or, if not known, the approximate date

and time of each relevant event;

d) give the location where each relevant event occurred;

e) describe how each defendant’s acts or omissions violated Plaintiff’s rights and

describe the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and

f) state what relief Plaintiff seeks from the Court, such as money damages, injunctive

relief, or declaratory relief.

Essentially, the body of Plaintiff’s amended complaint must tell the Court: who violated

his federally protected rights; what facts show that his federally protected rights were violated;

when such violationoccurred; where such violationoccurred; and whyPlaintiff is entitled to

relief. Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the

original complaint,any facts or claims that Plaintiff wishes to maintain must be included in the

amended complaint.

CONCLUSION

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s §1983 claims against the City of New York for failure to

state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the

standards set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court’s Pro Se

Intake Unitwithin sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended

Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 20-CV-2144 (LLS). An Amended Civil

Rights Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff

fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure,

the Court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

This order is to be mailed in chambers.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2020

New York, New York

Louis L. Stanton

U.S.D.J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW Y O R K

(In the space above enter the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s).) AMENDED

COMPLAINT

-against- under the Civil Rights Act,

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Jury Trial: Q Yes Q No

(check one)

____ Civ. _________ ( )

(In the space above enter the full name(s) of the defendant(s). If you

cannot fit the names of all of the defendants in the space provided,

please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an

additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names

listed in the above caption must be identical to those contained in

Part I. Addresses should not be included here.)

I. Parties in this complaint:

A. List your name, identification number, and the name and address of your current place of

confinement. Do the same for any additional plaintiffs named. Attach additional sheets of paper

as necessary.

Plaintiff’s Name_____________________________________________________________

ID#_______________________________________________________________

Current Institution___________________________________________________

Address___________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

B. List all defendants’ names, positions, places of employment, and the address where each defendant

may be served. Make sure that the defendant(s) listed below are identical to those contained in the

above caption. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary.

Defendant No. 1 Name ___________________________________________ Shield #_________

Where Currently Employed __________________________________________