Williams et al v. Ponte et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For these reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, and the Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close the case. Ordered by Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 9/25/2019. (fwd for judgment) (Fernandez, Erica)

IN CLERK'S OFFICE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT E D N Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

. CCD o c onm -l
bhP 2 6 2019 *
X

SIDNEY WILLIAMS,TRENT PATTERSON,

BROOKLYN OFFICE

and VINGAL CARTER,

Plaintiffs

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

-against-

16-CV-5420(CBA)(ST)

JOSEPH PONTE and MAXOLAINE MINGO,
Defendants.
X

AMON,United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs Sidney Williams, Trent Patterson, and Vingal Carter filed this pro se action
against Joseph Ponte, the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections, and

Maxolaine Mingo, the Warden of the Anna M. Kross Center("AMKC")on Rikers Island. (D.E.
# I.) Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that the poor air quality at AMKC violates
their constitutional rights and seeking damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.E. # 7("Am.
Compl.".) The Court granted Plaintiffs' request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). The Court dismissed the amended complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to file a second
amended complaint that would cure the deficiencies. Plaintiffs asked for a continuance to secure

pro bono counsel, which was granted, but no one has appeared on Plaintiffs' behalf' Because
Plaintiffs have not cured the deficiencies identified by the Court, the second amended complaint
is similarly dismissed.
DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in

forma pauperis if it: (1)"is frivolous or malicious,"(2)"fails to state a claim upon which relief

'Plaintiffs also requested the appointment of pro bono counsel, which did not come to the Court's attention at the
time. Regardless, the Court denies that application. The Court does not believe that the interests ofjustice require
appointment of counsel in this matter because there is not a likelihood of success on the merits. Hodae v. Police
Officers. 802 F.2d 58,60-61 (2d Cir. 1986).
1

may be granted," or(3)"seeks monetary relieffrom a defendant who is immune from such relief."

The Court previously articulated that a complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twomblv. 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The Court
advised Plaintiffs that their amended complaint was deficient because it offered only conclusory
allegations that methane gas at AMKC may have caused some unidentified harm without sufficient

specific factual allegations to satisfy Twpmbly's pleading standard. (D.E. # 21 at 3.) Plaintiffs
also failed to make specific allegations against the Defendants that could suggest any direct
involvement in,knowledge of,or responsibility for the alleged deprivation ofPlaintiffs' civil rights
by the Defendants. (Id. at 4.) The Court advised Plaintiffs to:
...provide all relevant facts, including the date(s) of each event, the location or
where each act or failure to act occurred, a description of what actually occurred,
and the names of all individuals personally involved in each event. Each plaintiff
must provide a description of any medical issues and any steps taken to seek
medical treatment. If medical treatment was denied, plaintiffs must provide the
date and the name ofthe prison official who allegedly denied each plaintiff medical
treatment. Plaintiffs must name as defendants the individuals who allegedly
violated their rights. (Id. at 4-5.)
Plaintiffs' Seeond Amended Complaint has not cured those previously identified

deficiencies. Plaintiffs plead an insufficiently specific coimection between methane gas and
medical injury. (D.E. # 25: Second Amended Complaint at 4.) Plaintiffs also offer no noneonclusory allegations regarding the involvement of the Defendants—a defect that would be
independently fatal to their claim. See Farid v. Ellen. 593 F.3d 233,249(2d Cir. 2010)("It is well
settled in this Circuit that personal involvement ofdefendants in alleged constitutional deprivations

is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.")(quoting Farrell v. Burke. 449 F.3d 470,
484(2d Cir. 2006))(internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs have merely recited the relevant

legal standard regarding defendant Mingo,(D.E. # 25 at 4), and have offered no non-conclusory

allegations about individual defendants in the Second Amended Complaint.^
CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, and the
Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close the case.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: September
2019
Brooklyn, New York

s/Carol Bagley Amon

"C^ol Bagl^y'Amc
United States District Judge

^ Plaintiff Carter submitted a letter to the Court prior to the Second Amended Complaint in which he makes an
allegation specific to defendant Ponte. The letter states that he "reached out" to Ponte and informed Ponte that his
health had declined after being incarcerated at Rikers. (D.E. # 22 at 2.) However, even if that had been pled in the
Second Amended Complaint, this vague allegation would be insufficient to sustain a case against Ponte. There are no
sufficient allegations ofPonte's personal involvement in a constitutional violation.