Pierre-Louis v. N.Y.C. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 5

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; but the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice because Pierre-Louis has not exhausted his administrative remedies. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 10/5/2012. (c/m to pro se; fwd'd for jgm) (Lee, Tiffeny)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------------)(
JEFFREY PIERRE-LOUIS,

Plaintiff,

ORDER
12-CV-2958 (NGG) (LB)

-againstN.Y.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, OFFICER
JOHN DOE, Badge # 10662, CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------)(
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Pierre-Louis, who is a pro se prisoner, requests leave to proceed in fonna
pauperis ("IFP"). (See Docket Entry # 2.) That motion is GRANTED for the purposes of this
order, but the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice because Pierre-Louis has not
exhausted his administrative remedies.
When a plaintiff proceeds IFP, a district court must dismiss all claims that clearly fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also id.
§ 1915A (court shall dismiss sua sponte all or any portion ofa prisoner's complaint that is

"frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted"). The court
reads pro se submissions, such as the Complaint, liberally. Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,
470 F.3d 471, 474':76 (2d Cir. 2006),
Pierre-Louis asserts a single claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York,
the New York City Department of Corrections, and an unnamed corrections officer. (See CompI.
(Docket Entry # 1) at 1-3.)
The claim fails because it is clear from the face of the Complaint that Pierre-Louis has not

exhausted his administrative remedies. The Prison litIgation Refonn Act of 1994 ("PLRA")
states that "no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.c. § 1983]
or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility
until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Here,
Pierre-Louis, who is confined at the Brooklyn Detention Complex, challenges the search of his
cell by a corrections officer. Such activity is related to the conditions at the prison. Cf. Porter v.
Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002) ("The PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate
suits about prison life, whether general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they
allege excessive force or other wrongs.") Pierre-Louis alleges that he has filed an administrative
grievance related to the search, but concedes that he is "still waiting" for it to be resolved. (See
Compl. at 2.)
The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to Pierre-Louis refiling it against the
unnamed corrections officer should he exhaust his administrative remedies. I Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED.

s/Nicholas G. Garaufis
NI'CHOLAS G. GARAUFIS
United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
October 5" ,2012

v

The Compliant is dismissed with prejudice as to the City of New York and the New York
City Department of Social Services, neither of which can be sued on the facts alleged. Cf. Monell v.
Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (holding that municipalities are not vicariously liable
under § 1983 for the acts of their employees); Dove v. Fordham Univ., 56 F. Supp. 2d 330, 337
(S.D.N.Y. 1990) (recognizing that organizational subdivisions of the City of New York are not amenable
to suit).
.

2