Murray v. New York State Division of Parole et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing, sua sponte, plaintiff's claims against New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, New York State Child and Family Services, the Kings County, Albany County, and Wyoming County divisions of New York Courts, and the Kings County District Attorney's Office. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 2/20/2015. (Gong, LiJia)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
DEXTER K. MURRAY,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
13 CV 7090 (KAM)(LB)

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE;
NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORRECTIONAL
SERVICE; NEW YORK CITY DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; NEW YORK CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT; NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RESOURCE ADMINISTRATION
SERVICES; NEW YORK KINGS COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE; NEW YORK
ALBANY COUNTY COURT OF APPEALS; NEW
YORK KINGS COUNTY SUPREME COURT CLERK
OFFICE; NEW YORK STATE KINGS COUNTY
SUPREME COURT; NEW YORK STATE WYOMING
COUNTY SUPREME COURT; NEW YORK STATE
OFFICE OF CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES;
NARCO FREEDOM DRUG PROGRAM; “DENNIS &
MEDICAL”; MIRACLE HOUSE; JOSEPH
GENTILE; CHARLIE WISE; DETECTIVE PAUL
BOSTIC, 67th Precinct; RONALD MOORE,
67th Precinct; DETECTIVE TAMMY
WEISBERG, of the 75th Precinct; JOHN
DOE DETECTIVE, of the 84th Precinct;
JOHN DOE, Badge #6377, Kings County
Family C.O.; SASHA GODOY
(“Perjurer”); SYLVIA LAKE
(“Bailment”); LASTARR DAVIS, A.C.S.
Agent; PAROLE OFFICER KATHLEEN
PETGRAVE; PAROLE OFFICER, SUPERVISOR
ALPHONSO CAMACHO; PAROLE OFFICER ANN
MOORE; PAL A&M SCHWARTZ HEAD START;
HEAD START DIRECTOR MS. RUDDER; and
HEAD START TEACHER MS. RODRIGUEZ,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Dexter K. Murray, who is currently on
parole, has brought this pro se civil rights action against
multiple public agencies, officers, and private individuals
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3).

(See Complaint, ECF

No. 1.) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is
granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, but the court sua sponte
dismisses plaintiff’s claims barred under the Eleventh Amendment
of the United States Constitution against New York state
defendants in their entirety.
“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed,
and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held
to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.”

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted).

If a liberal reading of

the complaint “gives any indication that a valid claim might be
stated,” the court must grant leave to amend the complaint.
Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).

See

Pursuant

to the in forma pauperis statute, however, a district court must
dismiss a case if the court determines that the complaint “is
frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief.”

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

The Eleventh Amendment of the United States
Constitution bars a suit in law or equity in federal court by a

2

citizen of a state against that state, absent the state’s
consent to such a suit or Congressional abrogation of immunity.
See Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54
(1996); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89,
99-101 (1984). State agencies serve as an arm of the state and
are, similarly, entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See
Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 100; Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781
(1978).
Here, Mr. Murray has not alleged that New York state
has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the law is wellsettled that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not abrogate the state’s
Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989) (“We find nothing substantial in
the legislative history that leads us to believe that Congress
intended that the word ‘person’ in § 1983 included the States of
the Union.”)

Therefore, all of plaintiff’s damages claims

against the New York State Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision (which now combines and includes the
functions of both the former New York State Division of Parole
and New York State Department of Corrections), New York State
Office of Child and Family Services, the Kings County, Albany
County, and Wyoming County divisions of the New York Courts, and
the Kings County District Attorney’s Office are dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

3

In dismissing sua sponte only plaintiff’s claims
against New York state defendants barred by the Eleventh
Amendment, the court does not imply that plaintiff’s other
claims are well-pleaded. Defendants remain free to move to
dismiss, and the court will afford any such motion the same
consideration that it devotes to any dispositive motion.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2015
Brooklyn, New York
___________/s/________________
KIYO A. MATSUMOTO
United States District Judge
Eastern D istrict of New York

4