holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue
How later courts described this case
- holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue
- “[A] plaintiff is generally prohibited from suing a municipal agency.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANTHONY BROWN,
Plaintiff,
-v.-
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF 20 Civ. 3979 (KPF)
CORRECTION; KISA SMALLS, WARDEN,
ORDER OF SERVICE
NORTH INFIRMARY COMMAND, NEW
YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION; CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW
YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE,
Defendants.
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in the North Infirmary Command (NIC)
on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that
Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By Order dated June 2, 2020,
the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees,
that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).1
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. See 28 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
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).
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).
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.
DISCUSSION
A. Department of Correction
Plaintiff’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction
must 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.”).
B. New York State Division of Parole
Plaintiff’s claims against the New York State Division of Parole must also
be dismissed. “[A]s 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.”
Id. New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in
federal court, and Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity in enacting
42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n, 557 F.2d
35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977).
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York are therefore
barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are dismissed.
C. Defendants City of New York and Warden Kisa Smalls
The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the New York City Department of
Correction and the New York City Law Department of this Order. The Court
requests that the City of New York and Warden Kisa Smalls waive service of
summons.
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff,
together with an information package.
The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the Department of
Correction and the New York State Division of Parole. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii).
The Clerk of Court is directed to electronically notify the New York City
Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of this
Order. The Court requests that Defendants City of New York and Warden Kisa
Smalls, waive service of summons.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied
for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,
444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he
seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 9, 2020 ' '
New York, New York Kathe Mal. fild-
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge