Edgardo v. AMKC Facility Medical Center C-95 East Elmhurst

Filing 4

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis: The plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The complaint is dismissed and leave to replead is granted. The plaintiff must file an amended complaint within 30 days of this order. See the attached order for further details and instructions. Ordered by Judge John Gleeson on 8/11/2011. (Glaser, Miriam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------x
JHONNY EDGARDO,

Plaintiff,

-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
11-CV-3238(JG)

AMKC FACILITY MEDICAL CENTER
C-95 EAST ELMHURST,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------x
JOHN GLEESON, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Rikers Island Correctional Facility, brings this
42 U.S.C. § 1983 pro se action against the Anna M. Kross Center (“AMKC”) at Rikers Island,
alleging denial of medical care. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 is granted. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s claim against defendant is
dismissed. Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to submit an amended complaint, as detailed below.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s statement of claim, in its entirety, states: “I went to medical last year
(Exhibit ‘A,’ ‘B,’) about my Gull stones [sic] now its going on 18 months, and I need help bad,
my health is getting wrost [sic].” (Compl. ¶ IV.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
DISCUSSION
A.

The Legal Standard
In reviewing plaintiff’s complaint, the Court is mindful that because plaintiff is

proceeding pro se, his submissions should be held “to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (citations omitted); see also
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197 (2d Cir.
2004). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a district court “shall review, before docketing, if feasible or,

in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Upon review, the district court shall dismiss a prisoner complaint
sua sponte if the complaint is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. §
1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007); Liner v. Goord, 196 F.3d 132,
134 & n.1 (2d Cir. 1999) (noting that under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, sua sponte
dismissal of frivolous prisoner complaints is not only permitted but mandatory).
B.

Analysis
In order to maintain a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must allege two elements.

First, “the conduct complained of must have been committed by a person acting under color of
state law.” Pitchell v. Callan, 13 F.3d 545, 547 (2d Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Second, “the
conduct complained of must have deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Id. Section 1983 “does not create a federal right
or benefit; it simply provides a mechanism for enforcing a right or benefit established elsewhere.”
Morris-Hayes v. Bd. of Educ. of Chester Union Free Sch. Dist., 423 F.3d 153, 159 (2d Cir. 2005)
(citing Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985)).
At the outset, I note that plaintiff’s complaint fails to name a proper defendant.
Plaintiff may not bring a § 1983 action against the medical center at Rikers Island Correctional
Facility, because it is an entity not amenable to suit. See Brown v. Inst. for Cmty. Living, 2010
WL 2400081, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. June 10, 2010) (claim against Rikers Island fails because it is a
prison facility and not considered a “person” for purposes of § 1983 liability).
Secondly, although the Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and
unusual punishment” of inmates, see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994), Edgardo has

2

not stated a viable claim under the Eighth Amendment. In order to establish a claim for
inadequate medical care, which is a form of cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the
Eighth Amendment, see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832, “a prisoner must prove ‘deliberate indifference
to [his] serious medical needs.’” Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 702 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). Plaintiff must prove both the objective prong, that
the deprivation of care for his medical condition was “sufficiently serious,” id. (quoting
Hathaway v. Coughlin, 37 F.3d 63, 66 (2d Cir. 1994)), and the subjective prong, that the
defendant “act[ed] with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Hathaway, 37 F.3d at 66 (citing
Wilson v. Setter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)); see Hobson v. Fischer, 2011 WL 891314, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2011). Here, although plaintiff alleges that he was denied medical care for
approximately eighteen months, he fails to name any defendants who are responsible for the
alleged denial of medical care. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009) (“a plaintiff
must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions,
violated the Constitution.”).
C.

Leave to Amend
In light of plaintiff’s pro se status and the nature of his allegations, he is afforded

30 days to amend his complaint to name proper defendant(s). See, e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d
346, 352 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)
(“[T]he court should not dismiss without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal
reading of the [pro se] complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.”
(alteration in original))). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, he must name as
defendants those individuals who have some personal involvement in the actions he alleges in the
amended complaint, see Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1994) (noting that personal
involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of

3

damages under § 1983), and identify each defendant in both the caption and the body of the
amended complaint. If plaintiff does not know the names of the individuals, he may identify
them as John Doe or Jane Doe. To the best of his ability, plaintiff must describe each individual
defendant and the role he or she played in the alleged deprivation of his rights, and provide all
relevant dates.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s claim against the AMKC medical center at Rikers Island is dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915A. Plaintiff is
granted 30 days from the date of this order to submit an amended complaint. The amended
complaint must be captioned as an “Amended Complaint” and bear the same docket number as
this order. No summons shall issue at this time and all further proceedings are stayed for 30 days
in order for plaintiff to comply with this order. If plaintiff fails to comply within the time
allowed, the complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice.
The Court certifies pursuant to pursuant to 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 purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

So ordered.
John Gleeson, U.S.D.J.
Dated: August 11, 2011
Brooklyn, New York

4