Opinion
21-CV-5670 (PMH)
08-02-2021
ROBERT PEARSON JR., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, OCJ MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF ORANGE COUNTY JAIL, Defendants.
ORDER
PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Orange County Jail, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that in May 2021, Defendants sprayed him in the eye with a chemical agent and then denied his requests for medical care. By Order dated July 15, 2021, 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 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 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).
DISCUSSION
A. New York State
“[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.
B. OCJ Medical Department
Plaintiff's claims against the OCJ Medical Department must also be dismissed because municipal 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. Mun. Law § 2 (“The term ‘municipal corporation,' as used in this chapter, includes only a county, town, city and village.”).
C. Unidentified Defendants
Under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997). In the complaint, Plaintiff may supply sufficient information to permit the County Attorney for Orange County to identify the OCJ corrections officers who were involved in the spraying incident allegedly occurring between May 10, 2021, and May 30, 2021, and the OCJ medical staff who responded to Plaintiff's requests for medical attention after the spraying incident. It is therefore ordered that the County Attorney for Orange County, who is the attorney for and agent of the Orange County Department of Corrections, must ascertain the identity of each John or Jane Doe whom Plaintiff seeks to sue here and the address where the defendant may be served. The Orange County Attorney must provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within sixty days of the date of this order.
Within thirty days of receiving this information, Plaintiff must file an Amended Complaint naming the Doe 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 the USM-285 forms with the addresses for the named Doe Defendants and deliver all documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals Service.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's claims against the OCJ Medical Department of the Orange County Jail and New York State are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package.
The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Order and the complaint to the County Attorney for the County of Orange at: 255-275 Main Street, Goshen, New York 10924.
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.