Rodriguez v. New York State Dep't of Corrections

Full title: AMY RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. New York

Date published: Jun 25, 2004

No. 04-CV-0177A(F) (W.D.N.Y. Jun. 25, 2004)

Opinion

No. 04-CV-0177A(F).

June 25, 2004

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

JOHN T. ELFVIN, Senior District Judge

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Amy Rodriguez, an inmate of the Albion Correctional Facility, has filed this pro se action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Docket No. 1) and has paid the filing fee. Plaintiff claims that the defendants named in her complaint, the New York State Department of Corrections and the Albion Correctional Facility, violated her constitutional rights by, e.g. wrongly subjecting her to disciplinary procedures and punishments, failing to properly process her grievances, and failing to properly address her physical and mental health problems. While plaintiff does not name as additional defendants any officials or employees of the state agencies against which she has brought suit, her complaint does identify the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (Glenn Goord) and the Superintendent of the Albion Correctional Facility (Anginell Andrews) under their respective agencies, which are named as defendants. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's claims against the defendants named in her complaint are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, but plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint as directed below.

Section 1915A(a) of 28 U.S.C. requires the Court to conduct an initial review of "a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity," id., regardless of whether or not the inmate has sought in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and under § 1915A the Court must dismiss a claim or the action "if the Court determines that . . . (b) the action . . . (1) is frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. Plaintiff, who has paid her filing fee in full and thus has not sought in forma pauperis status in this action, does seek redress from governmental entities and her complaint therefore is subject to the initial review of the Court.

In evaluating the complaint, the Court must accept as true all factual allegations and must draw all inferences in plaintiff's favor. See King v. Simpson, 189 F.3d 284, 287 (2d Cir. 1999). Dismissal is not appropriate "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). "This rule applies with particular force where the plaintiff alleges civil rights violations or where the complaint is submitted pro se." Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 701 (2d Cir. 1998). Based on its evaluation of the complaint, the Court finds that the plaintiff's claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and the Albion Correctional Facility must be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "To state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, the plaintiff must allege that the challenged conduct (1) was attributable to a person acting under color of state law, and (2) deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Whalen v. County of Fulton, 126 F.3d 400, 405 (2d. Cir. 1997) (citing Eagleston v. Guido, 41 F.3d 865, 875-76 (2d Cir. 1994)

Plaintiff's claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and the Albion Correctional Facility must be dismissed. The Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over claims against states absent their consent to such suit or an express statutory waiver of immunity. See Pennhurst State School Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98-100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). It is well-settled that states are not "persons" under § 1983, and thus Eleventh Amendment immunity is not abrogated by that statute. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-67, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989).

The Eleventh Amendment bar extends to agencies and officials sued in their official capacities, Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 1985). Plaintiff may therefore sue state officials sued in their official capacity only if they consent to be sued Pennhurst, 465 U.S. 89 at 199-201, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67.

As noted previously, the complaint does not name as defendants any officials or employees of the two state agencies against which the plaintiff has brought suit. However, the complaint does set forth the names of the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and the Superintendent of the Albion Correctional Facility, followed by plaintiff's checkmarks in the spaces provided in the form complaint next to the notation "Official Capacity." It would thus appear that plaintiff may have intended to include the Commissioner and the Superintendent as defendants, and the Court will therefore permit plaintiff to file an amended complaint naming any state official(s) or employee(s) against whom plaintiff may believe she has a cause of action under § 1983. Davidson v. Flynn, 32 F.3d 27, 31 (2d Cir. 1994) ("Sparse pleadings by a pro se litigant unfamiliar with the requirements of the legal system may be sufficient at least to permit the plaintiff to amend his complain to state a cause of action"); Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) (leave to amend "shall be given freely when justice so requires"). In preparing any amended complaint that she may wish to file, plaintiff is reminded that in order to state a claim under § 1983, she must allege personal involvement by a defendant in the alleged constitutional deprivation. Sealey v. Giltner, 116 F.3d 47, 51 (2d Cir. 1997); Williams v. Smith, 781 F.2d 319, 323-24 (2d Cir. 1986). Such involvement on the part of a supervisory official may be shown in one of several ways:

if he or she (1) directly participated in the violation; (2) failed to remedy the violation after learning of it through a report or appeal; (3) created a custom or policy fostering the violation or allowed the custom or policy to continue after learning of it; or (4) was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who caused the violation.

Sealey v. Giltner, 116 F.3d at 51 (citing Williams v. Smith, 781 F.2d at 323-24). Plaintiff is advised that failure to allege the personal involvement of any of the defendants will lead to the dismissal of the amended complaint against those defendants.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A unless she files an amended complaint by July 28, 2004 in which she names as defendants individuals who participated in or were personally involved in the alleged unconstitutional violations and includes the necessary allegations regarding her claims as directed above and in a manner that complies with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint is intended tocompletely replace the prior complaint in the action, and thus it "renders [any prior complaint] of no legal effect." International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 668 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied sub nom., Vesco Co., Inc. v. International Controls Corp., 434 U.S. 1014, 98 S. Ct. 730, 54 L.Ed.2d 758 (1978); see also Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., 25 F.3d 1124, 1128 (2d Cir. 1994). Therefore, plaintiff's amended complaint must include all of the allegations against each of the defendants named in the complaint so that the amended complaint may stand alone as the sole complaint in this action which the defendants must answer.

Plaintiff is forewarned that if she fails to file an amended complaint by July 28, 2004, as directed, the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

ORDER

IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that the claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and the Albion Correctional Facility are dismissed with prejudice and that plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint as directed above by July 28, 2004;

FURTHER, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff with this order a copy of the original complaint, a blank § 1983 complaint form, and the instructions for preparing an amended complaint;

FURTHER, that in the event plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint as directed above by July 28, 2004, the complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice without further order of the Court;

FURTHER, that in the event the complaint is dismissed because plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint by July 28, 2004, the Clerk of the Court shall close this case as dismissed with prejudice without further order.

SO ORDERED.