Lewis v. Ferguson et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff's 2 request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is granted. Plaintiff's claims against the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") are dismissed on the g rounds of sovereign immunity. The Court grants plaintiff 30 days in which to file an amended complaint against the individual defendants. Once an amended complaint is filed, it completely replaces the original. The amended complaint must be c aptioned as an "Amended Complaint" and bear the same docket number as this Order. If plaintiff fails to comply with this Order within the time allowed, judgment shall enter dismissing this action. No summons shall issue at this time a nd all further proceedings shall be stayed for 30 days. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. SO ORDERED by Judge Allyne R. Ross, on 6/10/2014. C/mailed by Chambers to pro se Plaintiff. (Party: Metropolitan Detention Center terminated.) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

£-ROOKLYN OFFICE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

-------------------------------------------------------------x
REGINA LEWIS,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
14-CV-3284 (ARR)

-againstM. FERGUSON; K. SPIVEY; J. CHILDRESS;
METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER,
Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------x
ROSS, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Regina Lewis, currently being held at the Federal Medical Center, Carswell in Ft.
Worth, Texas, brings this prose civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking monetary
damages. The court construes plaintiffs complaint as raising a claim under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiffs
request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is granted. For the reasons
discussed below, plaintiffs claims against the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") are
dismissed, and plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days leave to file an amended complaint against the
individual defendants.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys,
and the court is required to read plaintiffs prose complaint liberally and interpret it as raising the
strongest arguments it suggests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Hughes v. Rowe,
1

449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Sealed Plaintiffv. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185, 191-93 (2d Cir.
2008). Moreover, at the pleadings stage of the proceeding, the court must assume the truth of "all
well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations" in the complaint. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch
Petroleum Co., 621F.3d111, 124 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal. 556 U.S. 662, 678-79
(2009)). A complaint must plead sufficient facts to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
However, 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. Upon review, a district court shall dismiss a prisoner's
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.; see Liner v. Goord, 196 F.3d 132, 134 & n.l (2d Cir. 1999) (noting that under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, sua sponte dismissal of frivolous prisoner complaints is not only permitted
but mandatory); Tapia-Ortiz v. Winter, 185 F .3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1999).

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs complaint relates to events that occurred earlier this year while plaintiff was
being held at the MDC in Brooklyn, New York. Plaintiff states that she was placed on suicide
watch in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU") for eleven days "in a freezing cell, naked, with severe
anemia, high blood pressure that was not treated and I slept on a tombstone cement block."
Comp!., Dkt. #1, at ECF 6. Plaintiff asserts that in the SHU she was "deprived of un-restricted
access to court, legal activities, visits, trulincs and medical care." Id. Plaintiff further alleges that
2

she was deprived of the same access when she was in the general population at MDC: "I have
been deprived of important legal calls ... and I have been deprived the administrative remedy
process .... In the midst of trying to resolve my issue of unlawful imprisonment I have been
purposelessly placed either in SHU or suicide watch. I have been in some form of segregation
more than I have been in population." Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at ECF 8.

DISCUSSION
An action against a federal agency or federal officers in their official capacities is treated
as a suit against the United States. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985).
Therefore, suits against a federal agency such as the MDC and officers in their official capacities
are barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510
U.S. 471, 475 (1994); Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21F.3d502, 510 (2d Cir.
1994). Without a waiver of sovereign immunity, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction
over a plaintiffs claims against the United States or agencies of the United States. See Meyer, 510
U.S. at 475. It is the plaintiffs burden to demonstrate that sovereign immunity has been waived.
See Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). Here, plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate the requisite waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States. Thus, as the MDC
is part of the Bureau of Prisons, a federal agency, plaintiffs claims against the MDC are
dismissed. See Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475; Gay v. Terrell, No. 12-CV-02925 (CBA)(VMS), 2013
WL 5437045, at *28 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2013).
The doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar a suit against government officials in
their individual capacities. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of
3

Narcotics. 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Supreme Court recognized an implied private cause of action
for damages against federal officers who violate a citizen's constitutional rights. Bivens actions,
although not completely parallel, are the federal analog to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions against state
actors. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254 n. 2 (2006) (noting that a Bivens action is the
federal analog to claims against state actors brought under§ 1983); see also Tavarez v. Reno, 54
F.3d 109, 110 (2d Cir. 1995) ("[F]ederal courts have typically incorporated§ 1983 law into
Bivens actions.").
A Bivens action lies against a defendant only when the plaintiff can show the defendant's
personal involvement in the constitutional violation. See. e.g., Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 676
("Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that
each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual ac;tions, has violated
the Constitution."); Thomas v. Ashcroft, 470 F.3d 491, 496 (2d Cir. 2006) ("[I]n Bivens actions, a
plaintiff must allege that the individual defendant was personally involved in the constitutional
violation.").
Here, even construing the complaint liberally, plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to
support a claim that any of the named individual defendants had any direct involvement with,
knowledge of, or responsibility for the alleged deprivation of plaintiffs civil rights. Although
plaintiff names three individual defendants, she provides minimal facts against only one of the
named defendants, stating: "The defendant M. Furguson has also instructed inmates hired as
orderlies and other staff on duty to deny me toilet tissue knowing that I have a medical condition
that causes me to use the bathroom more frequently." Compl. at ECF 6.

4

',

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, plaintiffs claims against the Metropolitan Detention Center are dismissed on
the grounds of sovereign immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The Court grants plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to file an amended complaint against
the individual defendants. Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 597-98 (2d Cir. 2000). Plaintiff must
provide the dates and a brief description of each alleged civil rights violation by the individual
defendants that she names in the amended complaint, including the personal involvement of each
named defendant.
Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint does not simply add to the first complaint.
Once an amended complaint is filed, it completely replaces the original. Therefore, plaintiff must
include in the amended complaint all the necessary information that was contained in the original
complaint. The amended complaint must be captioned as an "Amended Complaint" and bear the
same docket number as this order.
If plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, judgment shall enter
dismissing this action. No summons shall issue at this time and all further proceedings shall be
stayed for thirty (30) days. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal
would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an
appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 269 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.

/S/ Judge Allyne R. Ross
ALLYNE

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
June 10, 2014

SERVICE LIST
Plaintiff:
Regina Lewis
67206-054
Federal Medical Center, Carswell
P.O. Box 27137
Ft. Worth, TX 76127