Williams v. Superintendent of the Brooklyn Detention Center et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dated 11/17/15 granting petitioner's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend in part. The complaint is dismissed as to the City of New York and the New York City Dep artment of Correction for failure to state a claim. No summons shall issue against these defendants. Amended complaint to be filed within 20 days. The Court certifies pursuant to 28:1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 11/17/2015 ) c/m (Guzzi, Roseann)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
C/M
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------- X
:
ROBERT ANTON WILLIAMS, JR.,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
- against : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
:
SUPERINTENDENT OF BROOKLYN
: 15 Civ. 6085 (BMC)(LB)
DETENTION CENTER; SUPERINTENDENT :
OF ANNA M. KROSS CENTER; THE CITY :
OF NEW YORK; THE DEPARTMENT
:
OF CORRECTIONS OF THE CITY OF NEW :
YORK,
:
Defendants.
:
:
----------------------------------------------------------- X
COGAN, District Judge.
Petitioner, currently incarcerated at the Anna M. Kross Center (“AMKC”) on Rikers
Island, filed this pro se civil rights complaint against defendants. He seeks $250,000 in
damages. The Court grants plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. The complaint is
dismissed as set forth below, with leave to amend in part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that he was “denied access to the court on three separate occasions by
[Department of Corrections] resulting in the dismissal of all 3 claims in Brooklyn Family Court.”
Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to the Family Court: on February 6,
2015, when he was detained at the Brooklyn Detention Center; on September 30, 2015; and
October 6, 2015, when he was detained at AMKC. Plaintiff also includes a copy of a Summons
issued to Monique Pappas to appear in Family Court on October 6, 2015.

Plaintiff is no stranger to this Court. See Williams v. NYS Board of Examiners, No. 15
Civ. 6086 (BMC) (filed Oct. 15, 2015); Williams v. Quinones, No. 15 Civ. 5609 (BMC)
(complaint dismissed in part, false arrest claim stayed pending resolution of criminal proceedings
in state court); Williams v. Hynes, No. 15 Civ. 5480 (BMC) (dismissed sua sponte pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B)); Williams v. Whitbeck, No. 14 Civ. 6794 (BMC)
(granting defendant’s motion to dismiss); Williams v. Smith, No. 14 Civ. 5082 (BMC)
(pending).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing the complaint, the Court is mindful that plaintiff is proceeding pro se and
that his pleadings should be held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); accord Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007); Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). A complaint, however, must plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although all
allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal
conclusions.” Id. Nonetheless, the Court must screen a civil complaint brought by a prisoner
against a governmental entity or its agents and dismiss the complaint or any portion of the
complaint if the complaint is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief

2

may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) & (b)(1) (emphasis added). See Abbas v. Dixon, 480
F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).
Moreover, pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute, the Court must dismiss the action if
it determines that it “(i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
DISCUSSION
A.

Municipal Liability
In order to sustain a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a municipal

defendant, such as the City of New York, a plaintiff must show the existence of an officially
adopted policy or custom that caused injury and a direct causal connection between that policy
or custom and the deprivation of a constitutional right. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs of the
City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 692, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2036 (1978); see also Connick v.
Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 1359 (2011) (municipalities can be held liable for
“practices so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law”); Costello v. City
of Burlington, 632 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2011); Plair v. City of New York, 789 F. Supp. 2d 459,
469 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“Following Iqbal and Twombly, Monell claims must satisfy the
plausibility standard . . . . ”).
Plaintiff’s complaint only includes conclusory statement alleging “the custom, policy,
and practice” of the City of New York has had the practical effect of depriving him of
constitutional privileges. Plaintiff does not allege, and nothing in his complaint suggests, any
facts to support a Monell claim against the City of New York. Therefore, plaintiff has not made

3

the required showing to confer Monell liability on the City of New York and this portion of the
complaint complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 1915(e)(2)(B).
Furthermore, section 396 of the Charter provides that “[a]ll actions and proceedings for
the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the city of
New York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law.” N.Y.C.
Admin. Code & Charter Ch. 17 § 396. That provision “has been construed to mean that New
York City departments [and agencies, such as the New York City Department of Correction
(“DOC”)], as distinct from the City itself, lack the capacity to be sued.” Ximines v. George
Wingate High Sch., 516 F.3d 156, 159-60 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Lopez v. Zouvelos, No.
13 Civ. 6474 (MKB), 2014 WL 843219, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2014) (dismissing all claims
against the NYPD and DOC as non-suable entities); Henderson v. Kelly, No. 13 Civ. 5738, 2014
WL 689046, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2014) (same); Adams v. Galletta, 966 F. Supp. 210, 212
(E.D.N.Y. 1997) (DOC not a suable entity). Therefore, the New York City DOC cannot be sued
and plaintiff’s claims against this defendant are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b);
1915(e)(2)(B).
B.

Access to the Courts
Plaintiff sues the Superintendents of both the Brooklyn Detention Center and AMKC for

denying him access to Family Court proceedings. In order to plead a violation of the plaintiff’s
right of access to the courts, plaintiff must demonstrate that he has suffered, or will suffer, actual
injury because of the conduct of prison officials. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349, 116 S.
Ct. 2174, 2179 (1995); Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003) (“plaintiff must allege
that the defendant took or was responsible for actions that hindered efforts to pursue a legal

4

claim”); Monsky v. Moraghan, 127 F.3d 243, 247 (2d Cir. 1997) (“a plaintiff must demonstrate
that a defendant caused actual injury”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
In other words “the plaintiff must show . . . that a nonfrivolous legal claim had been
frustrated or was being impeded due to the actions of prison officials.” Amaker v. Haponik, No.
98 Civ. 2663, 1999 WL 76798, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 1999) (internal citation omitted); Clay
v. Schwebler, No. 9:13 Civ. 1314, 2015 WL 4464496, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. July 21, 2015)
(dismissing pro se plaintiff’s access-to-court claim regarding visitation petition to Family Court
while incarcerated). Here, plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to the court on three
separate occasions and that the Family Court dismissed his claims as a result. Although plaintiff
attaches orders directing the prison facility to produce plaintiff at a telephonic hearing on
February 6, 2015 and on September 30, 2015, he does not state that any individual prison official
failed to produce him for the telephonic hearing at the prison facility. As to plaintiff’s claim that
he was not produced on October 6, 2015, he only provides a summons issued for Monique
Pappas. It is unclear whether plaintiff is alleging that prison officials failed to bring him to
Family Court for the dates he listed, or that they failed to produce him for the telephonic hearings
to be held at the prison facility. Finally, although plaintiff alleges that his Family Court case was
dismissed as a result, he does not provide any support for this conclusion. Plaintiff’s claim
alleging lack of access to the courts is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is dismissed as to the
City of New York and the New York City Department of Correction for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b); 1915(e)(2)(B). No summons shall issue against these

5

defendants and the Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption to reflect the dismissal of
these defendants.
In light of plaintiff’s pro se status, Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000),
the Court will permit plaintiff to file an amended complaint solely as to his access-to-court claim
against the remaining defendants within 20 days from the entry date of this Order. If plaintiff
elects to file an amended complaint, it must be captioned “AMENDED COMPLAINT” and bear
the docket number, 15 Civ. 6085 (BMC). In the amended complaint, plaintiff should set forth
the actions allegedly taken by each of the defendants, the case to which such actions were
related, the effect on the case, and the ultimate result in the case. Plaintiff must name as
defendants the individuals who allegedly violated his rights.1 If available, plaintiff should attach
copies of any orders issued by the Family Court to support his claim, including any orders of
dismissal. If filed, the amended complaint shall replace the original complaint. All further
proceedings shall be stayed for 20 days or until plaintiff has complied with this Order. If
plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint with the time allowed, the action shall be dismissed
and judgment shall enter. 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 the purpose
of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed by Brian M.
Cogan
_______________________________________
U.S.D.J.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
November 17, 2015

1

If plaintiff cannot identify each individual within the time allowed, he can identify each defendant as John or Jane
Doe #1 etc. along with job title, place of employment, date and tour of duty, and a physical description.

6