Opinion
19-CV-5009 (VSB)
06-20-2019
CORWIN ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. NYC DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; RIKERS ISLAND, Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE :
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Collins Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, while he was detained in the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island, Defendants denied him adequate medical care. By order dated June 17, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).
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 a complaint, or portion thereof, 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 (2d Cir. 2007). 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, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
DISCUSSION
A. NYC Department of Correction
Plaintiff's claims against the New York City Department of Correction must be dismissed because city agencies or departments do not have the capacity to be sued under New York law. See Omnipoint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Town of LaGrange, 658 F. Supp. 2d 539, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("In New York, agencies of a municipality are not suable entities."); Hall v. City of White Plains, 185 F. Supp. 2d 293, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ("Under New York law, departments which are merely administrative arms of a municipality do not have a legal identity separate and apart from the municipality and cannot sue or be sued."); see also N.Y. Gen. Municipal Law Sec. 2 ("The term 'municipal corporation,' as used in this chapter, includes only a county, town, city and village.").
In light of Plaintiff's pro se status and clear intention to assert claims against the City of New York, the Court construes the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York, and directs the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of this action to replace the NYC Department of Correction with the City of New York. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses the City of New York may wish to assert.
B. Rikers Island
Plaintiff's claims against Rikers Island must also be dismissed. Section 1983 provides that an action may be maintained against a "person" who has deprived another of rights under the "Constitution and Laws." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rikers Island is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983. See generally Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state is not a "person" for the purpose of § 1983 claims); Zuckerman v. Appellate Div., Second Dep't Supreme Court, 421 F.2d 625, 626 (2d Cir. 1970) (court not a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 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 § 1983). Therefore, Plaintiff's claim against Rikers Island must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
C. Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Plaintiff asserts that he gave Correction Officer Cooper more than three medical forms to be seen by a doctor, and that Plaintiff was in pain for three weeks before he saw the doctor. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed, under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to amend the caption of this action to add Correction Officer Cooper as a Defendant. This amendment is without prejudice to any defenses that this Defendant may wish to assert.
D. Waiver of Service
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 Correction Officer Cooper 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 New York City Department of Correction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk of Court is directed to add the City of New York as a Defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.
The Court also dismisses Plaintiff's claims against Rikers Island. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
The Clerk of Court is directed to add Correction Officer Cooper as a Defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.
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 Defendant the City of New York and Correction Officer Cooper waive service of summons.
The Clerk of Court is directed to docket this as a "written opinion" within the meaning of Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002.
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 20, 2019
New York, New York
/s/_________
Vernon S. Broderick
United States District Judge