Opinion
1:19-CV-5888 (CM)
11-06-2019
O'KANG FENYANG ANDRE RUDDOCK, Plaintiff, v. WESTCHESTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant.
ORDER TO AMEND :
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under the Court's federal question jurisdiction. He sues Westchester Community College ("WCC") and seeks damages. He alleges that WCC violated his civil rights and stole funds he was to receive from student loans. The Court construes Plaintiff's complaint as asserting claims of federal constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order dated October 28, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis. 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 an in forma pauperis 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. 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 (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. Id. (citing 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. at 678-79.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Between August and December 2017 he attended WCC. While he received a Pell grant that paid his tuition, during the Fall 2017 semester, he applied for and received funds from both subsidized and unsubsidized student loans. He received half of his student-loan funds during the Fall 2017 semester, and he was supposed to receive the other half of those funds during the Spring 2018 semester. But even though Plaintiff's Pell grant paid his tuition, WCC officials told him that his student-loan funds would be applied to his tuition balance. Plaintiff received a letter from WCC's financial-aid office informing him that a student-loan check was waiting in that office for him to pick up. But when he called WCC, no one knew what he was talking about. Plaintiff seems to accuse WCC's bursar's office of stealing the financial aid that he was supposed to receive.
WCC's head of security racially harassed Plaintiff because of "a verbal disagreement [Plaintiff] had away from campus." (ECF 2, p. 5.) Plaintiff "was surrounded and profiled by security for the entire time [he] attended the college." (Id.) And he "was made to write an essay of the events." (Id.) He seeks $10,000,000 in damages "for the dismantling of [his] piece of mind due to these events causing a chain reaction of other events which include eviction and belittling of [his] self esteem through racist and prejudiced comments harbored by staff thus setting the status quo behavior on campus." (Id. p. 6.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that WCC violated his civil rights and stole funds he was to receive from student loans. The Court therefore construes Plaintiff's complaint as asserting claims of federal constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
A. Municipal liability
When a plaintiff sues a municipal agency under § 1983, such as WCC, it is not enough for the plaintiff to allege that one of the municipal agency'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, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011) ("A municipality or other local government may be liable under . . . 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. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978))); Cash v. Cnty. of Erie, 654 F.3d 324, 333 (2d Cir. 2011). 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. Jones v. Town of East Haven, 691 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2012); see Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997) (internal citations omitted); Bilal v. Westchester Cmty. Coll., No. 13-CV-3161, 2014 WL 2881217, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2014) (applying § 1983 municipal liability standard to WCC), appeal dismissed, No. 14-2553 (2d Cir. Sept. 5, 2014).
WCC is a department of the County of Westchester. See Leitner v. Westchester Cmty. Coll., 779 F.3d 130, 132-40 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing Laws of Westchester County § 164.71, holding that WCC is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity).
Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts showing that a policy, custom, or practice of WCC or the County of Westchester caused a violation of his federally protected rights. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to allege such facts.
B. Personal involvement of individuals
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts showing an individual's direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Spavone v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Serv., 719 F.3d 127, 135 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir. 1995)). A defendant may not be held liable under § 1983 solely because that defendant employs or supervises a person who violated the plaintiff's rights. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 ("Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior."). An individual can be personally involved in a § 1983 violation if:
(1) the defendant participated directly in the alleged constitutional violation, (2) the defendant, after being informed of the violation through a report or appeal, failed to remedy the wrong, (3) the defendant created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom, (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts, or (5) the defendant exhibited deliberate indifference to the rights of [the plaintiff] by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring.Colon, 58 F.3d at 873.
"Although the Supreme Court's decision in [Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662] may have heightened the requirements for showing a supervisor's personal involvement with respect to certain constitutional violations," the Second Circuit has not yet examined that issue. Grullon v. City of New Haven, 720 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff has not named any individuals as defendants but alleges that individual WCC staff members violated his federal constitutional rights. The Court therefore grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to assert § 1983 claims against those individual WCC staff members. He must name those individual WCC staff members as defendants and allege facts showing how those individuals were personally involved in the violations of his federal constitutional rights.
C. Leave to amend
Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to detail his claims. First, Plaintiff must name as the defendant(s) in the caption and in the statement of claim those individuals who were allegedly involved 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. The naming of "John Doe" or "Jane Doe" defendants, however, does not toll the three-year statute of limitations period governing Plaintiff's § 1983 claims and Plaintiff shall be responsible for ascertaining the true identity of any "John Doe" or "Jane Doe" defendants and amending his complaint to include the identity of any "John Doe" or "Jane 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.
The caption is located on the front page of the complaint. Each 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.
For example, a defendant may be identified as: "Correction Officer John Doe #1 on duty on August 31, 2018, in the Sullivan Correctional Facility clinic, during the 7 a.m. to 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 violation occurred; where such violation occurred; and why Plaintiff 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 Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket and note service on the docket. Plaintiff is granted 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 Unit within sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an "Amended Complaint," and label the document with docket number 19-CV-5888 (CM). An Amended 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 action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff has consented to electronic service of Court documents. (ECF 3.)
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 in forma pauperis 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).
The Clerk of Court is also directed to docket this order as a "written opinion" within the meaning of Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 6, 2019
New York, New York
/s/_________
COLLEEN McMAHON
Chief United States District Judge