Opinion
24-CV-1128 (KMK)
06-10-2024
TYRONE COOPER, Plaintiff, v. GREENE HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; JHON DOE CORRECTION OFFICERS, Defendants.
VALENTIN ORDER
KENNETH M. KARAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, who currently is incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility, brings this Action, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, while he was confined at Green Haven Correctional Facility (“Green Haven”), correction officers ignored a court order and forced him to have a haircut, in violation of the tenets of his Rastafarian religious beliefs and his right to the free exercise of his religion under the First Amendment. By Order dated May 15, 2024, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”).As set forth in this Order, the Court (1) dismisses the claims against Green Haven under the Eleventh Amendment; and (2) directs the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) to identify the John Doe correction officers.
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).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 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); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. 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. Federal 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.
DISCUSSION
A. Claims against Green Haven Correctional Facility
“[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 § 1983. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm'n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977).
Plaintiff names Green Haven, a facility operated by DOCCS, as a Defendant. Because DOCCS is an arm of the State of New York, it is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity that extends to its facilities such as Green Haven. See Gardner v. Koeningsman, No. 21-CV-10185, 2022 WL 1058498, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022); White v. New York, No. 19-CV-0543, 2019 WL 2578270, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2019). The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff's claims against Green Haven because Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a Defendant that is immune from such relief and, therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); see Close v. New York, 125 F.3d 31, 3839 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[U]nless New York waived its immunity, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.”).
Green Haven is also not a “person” for the purposes of Section 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state is not a “person” for the purpose of Section 1983 claims); Zuckerman v. App. Div., Second Dep't S.Ct., 421 F.2d 625, 626 (2d Cir. 1970) (court not a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983); 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 Section 1983).
B. John Doe Correction Officers
Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the Court in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the Complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit DOCCS to identify the John Doe correction officers whom Plaintiff alleges ignored his no haircut voucher and directed an inmate to cut his hair at Green Haven on November 28, 2023. It is therefore ordered that the New York State Attorney General, who is the attorney for and agent of DOCCS, must ascertain the identity and badge number of each John Doe Defendant whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where each of those Defendants may be served. The Attorney General must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within 60 days of the date of this order.
Within 30 days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified defendants. The amended complaint will replace, not supplement, the original Complaint. An amended complaint form that Plaintiff should complete is attached to this order. Once Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to complete a USM-285 form with the address for each named newly identified defendant and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service.
CONCLUSION
The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims against Green Haven Correctional Facility as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order and the Complaint to the New York State Attorney General at: Managing Attorney's Office, 28 Liberty Street, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10005.
An amended complaint form is attached to this order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail an information package to Plaintiff.
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. See Coppedge v United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.