Brown v. Metropolitan Detention Center

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Court has reviewed the amended complaint, and has determined that it does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and does not state a claim on which relief may be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to submit a second amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. (see order for details). Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 8/30/2016. c/m to pro se Plaintiff Angelo K. Brown (Fernandez, Erica)

*

AUG 3 1 £j\S

·[I(

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT BROOKLYN OfFICE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

------------------------------------------------------------------){
ANGELO K. BROWN,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
-against16-CV-3627 (WFK)
DR. BORECKY; OFFICER NUNEZ; WARDEN
QUAY; OFFICER BRADWICH; OFFICER
BEYERL Y TIMOTHY,
Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------------){
KUNTZ, United States District Judge:

On June 22, 2016, Plaintiff Angelo K. Brown filed this prose action against the
Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") in Brooklyn, New York. By order dated July 25, 2016,
the Court liberally construed the action as alleging a claim for deliberate indifference to his
medical needs or other possible violations of his constitutional rights under the Eighth or
Fourteenth Amendments, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed Bureau ofNarcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), but dismissed the action against MDC for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. On August 12, 2016, upon the direction of the Court, Plaintiff submitted
an amended complaint that provides the names of the individuals responsible for the alleged
violations. The Court has reviewed the amended complaint, and has determined that it does not
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and does not state a claim on which relief may be
granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to submit a second amended complaint within thirty (30) days
of the date of this Order.
Factual and Procedural Background

In his complaint, Plaintiff made the following allegations. Plaintiff suffered a serious
injury to his knee on July 18, 2013, for which he received surgery and physical therapy.

(Complaint at 4.) On December 16, 2013, Plaintiff was arrested by federal agents and was
detained at the Nassau County Correctional facility. (Id.) He received physical therapy for the
first month. (Id.) Thereafter, Plaintiff was transferred to the MDC. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges
that he made numerous written requests for physical therapy during the next two years, but that
the only medical attention he received was pain medication. (Id.) He states: "There is a
consistent swelling in the knee that was injured. The ability to move the knee or bend the knee is
completely diminished. Sometimes when I am walking my knee gives out on me and buckle my
body." (Id.) Plaintiff seeks medical evaluation by a specialist and three million dollars in
damages. (Id. at 5.)
In its July 25, 2016 Order, the Court granted Plaintiffs request to proceed informa

pauperis, but because plaintiff had failed to state a claim against the only named defendant, the
MDC, the Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § !915A(b) and 28 U.S.C. §
l 915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In light of plaintiffs prose status, the Court granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days
within which to file an amended complaint to name individuals who could be held liable in a

Bivens action or to assert possible claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
On August 12, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint, a brief six-paragraph
document, that names five individuals as "personally responsible for constitutional violations"
against him: "Dr. Borecky, Officer Nunez, Warden Quay, Officer Bradwich, and Officer
Timothy." Am. Comp!. at I. Although Plaintiff concludes that they are "personally responsible
for constitutional violations," he does not set forth any facts in support of any Bivens claim
against them. In fact, he does not make any allegations against these individuals whatsoever or
identify the roles each of them played in the incidents. In addition, although he states that he
wishes to preserve any rights under the Federal Tort Claims Act, he does not, as the Court

2

directed in its July 25, 2016 Order, "name the United States as a defendant and provide
information about any efforts to exhaust his administrative remedies." 1 Moreover, there are no
facts alleged in support of either claim.
Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Title 28 of the United States Code, § 19 l 5A requires this Court to review the complaint
in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or from officers or
employees thereof, and to "identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
the complaint, ifthe 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." 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). Pursuant to the in

forma pauper is statute, 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).
"A document filed prose is to be liberally construed, and a prose 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," this Court must grant leave to amend the complaint. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F .3d
99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). At the pleading stage of the proceeding, the Court must assume the truth

1
FTCA claims are subject to filing deadlines: the claim must be presented to the agency within two years after the
claim accrues and then brought to federal court within six months after agency action. 28 U.S.C. § 240l(b). These
time limits are subject to equitable tolling. United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, -- U.S.--, 135 S. Ct. 1625, 1629, 191
L. Ed. 2d 533 (2015).

3

of "all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations" in the complaint. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch

Petroleum Co., 621F.3d111, 123 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009)). A complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Although "detailed factual
allegations" are not required, "[a] pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."' Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 662 (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
B. Rule 8
In his amended complaint, Plaintiff has now named individual defendants but not made
any allegations against them. His reference to his complaint does not cure this fatal flaw. A
plaintiffs failure to make any allegations against a defendant he has named is fatal to his claims
against that defendant. Fed. R.Civ. P. 8.
Rule 8 provides in relevant part that a complaint "shall contain ... a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), and
that each averment be "simple, concise, and direct." Fed.R.Civ. P. 8(d)(l). In a federal lawsuit,
a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to allow the defendants to have a fair understanding of
what he is complaining about at to enable them to determine whether there is a possible legal
basis for recovery. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (Rule 8 imposes the requirement that the
plaintiffs "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds on which it
rests." (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); Ricciuti v. NYC Trans. Auth., 941
F.2d 119, 123 (2d Cir. 1991) ("[Rule 8] is designed to permit the defendant to have a fair
understanding of what the plaintiff is complaining about and to know whether there is a legal

4

basis for recovery."). Without pleading any connection to the events described in the complaint,
the amended complaint against these five defendants must be dismissed.
C. Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised,
however, that the second amended complaint will completely replace the complaint and amended
complaint. The second amended complaint should reflect consideration of the July 25, 2016
Order and the information contained in this Order.
In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff must satisfy the minimal filing requirements
of Fed. R.Civ. P. 8, providing each of the defendants with notice of the claims against it and a
short, plain statement of the relevant facts supporting his claim or claims. Not only must
Plaintiff name individuals who were personally involved as defendants, but Plaintiff must also
provide facts pertinent to each claim. Plaintiff cannot rely on generalized allegations of
misconduct. If Plaintiff elects to file a second amended complaint, he should list specifically
what injury he suffered, when and how it occurred, and who was responsible for it. Conclusory
allegations are not sufficient. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57,
570). If Plaintiff cannot identify a particular defendant at this time, he may designate him/her as
John/Jane Doe. To aid Plaintiff with this task, the Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to
provide a "Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights" form to Plaintiff.
Additionally, if Plaintiff seeks to raise a Federal Torts Act claim, he must name the
United States as a defendant, set forth allegations and provide information about any efforts to
exhaust his administrative remedies.

5

CONCLUSION

Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the defendants he has named, his
amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
However, in light of Plaintiff's prose status, the Court grants Plaintiff thirty days leave
to file a second amended complaint regarding his Bivens claims or to assert possible claims
under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to provide a
"Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights" form to Plaintiff. If Plaintiff elects to file a second
amended complaint, the second amended complaint must provide facts giving rise to each of his
federal claims against the defendant(s). It shall be submitted to the court within 30 days of the
docket entry of this Order and will completely replace both the complaint and the amended
complaint. No summons shall issue at this time and all further proceedings are stayed for thirty
days for plaintiff to comply with this Order. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order within
the time allowed, judgment dismissing this action shall enter. Once submitted, the amended
complaint will be reviewed for compliance with this Order and for sufficiency under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), and 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). The court certifies pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore informa

pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.
438, 444--45 (1962).
SO ORDERED

s/William F. Kuntz

~IAMF.KuN

?

,II ..._......
United States Distr' t Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 30, 2016
6

"