Quince v. Rikers Island Facility C-95 AMKC

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") is granted for the purpose of this Order. For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, p ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). All proceedings shall be stayed for 30 days. If plaintiff fails to replead within 30 days as directed by this Order, judgment dismissing the complaint shall enter. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. & #167; 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 10/25/2017. (Taronji, Robert)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------)(
JAMAL QUINCE, I
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER

- against -

17-CV-3949 (RRM) (CLP)
RIKERS ISLAND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
C-95 AMKC,
Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------------)(
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.

Pro se plaintiff Jamal Quince brings this action arising out of his incarceration at Riker's
Island. Plaintiffs request to proceed informa pauperis (" IFP") is granted for the purpose of this
Order. For the reasons that follow, the complaint is dismissed, with leave to replead within 30
days as set forth below.

BACKGROUND
Quince alleges that he was arraigned and remanded to the custody of the New York City
Department of Correction during the period of April 10-16.2 (Comp!. (Doc. No. 1) at 6).)3 He
states that the events giving rise to his claim occurred at the Anna M. Kross Center at Rikers
Island. (Id. ) In the space to provide the facts underlying the claim, Quince does not describe a
specific incident, but alleges "guard brutality, offices use of chemical agent, medical care
negligent injury or medical malpractice." (Id.) He alleges that he suffered a stomach infection,

1

Although the caption indicates plaintiffs name as " Jamal Quince," subsequent references and the signature line
indicate an alternate spelling of "Jamaal Quince."
2

He does not indicate the year.

3

All citations to pages of the complaint refer to the Electronic Court Filing System ("ECF" ) pagination.

asthma, and chronic rectal bleeding and that medical staff at the jail discontinued medication.
(Comp!. at 5.) Quince requests $9 million in damages. (Id.)

ST ANDARD OF REVIEW
Title 28, section 1915(e)(2), of the United States Code provides that "the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action is frivolous or malicious,
fai ls to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief." Moreover, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
requires a plaintiff to provide "( l) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court' s
jurisdiction ... , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought .... " Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8 " demands
more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). A complaint must contain "sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 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." Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).
"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, 55 1 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S .
97, I 06 (1976)). Thus, a court must read a prose complaint with "special solicitude." Ruotolo v.
1.R.S. , 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994). 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. See Cuoco v.

Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 11 2 (2d Cir. 2000); Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795
(2d Cir. 1999).

2

I
I
I

DISCUSSION
Quince's complaint invokes his constitutional rights, a claim which may be cognizable
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to maintain a§ 1983 action, a plaintiff must allege two
essential elements. First, "the conduct complained of must have been committed by a person
acting under color of state law." Pitchell v. Callan, 13 F.3d 545, 547 (2d Cir. 1994). Second,
"the conduct complained of must have deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Id. In order to bring a claim pursuant
to § 1983, a plaintiff must show that each of the named individuals is personally liable for the
alleged harm. Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470, 484 (2d Cir. 2006). A municipality can be liable
under § 1983 only if a plaintiff can show that a municipal policy or custom caused the
deprivation of his or her constitutional rights. See Monell v. Dep 'I ofSoc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,
690-91 (1978); Cash v. County. of Erie, 654 F.3d 324, 333 (2d Cir. 20 11), cert. denied, 132 S.
Ct. 1741 (2012) ("[T]o establish municipal liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that
action pursuant to official municipal policy caused the alleged constitutional injury." (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)). Proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is
not sufficient to impose liability on a municipality unless proof of the incident includes proof
that it was caused by an existing, unconstitutional municipal policy that can be attributed to a
municipal policymaker. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823 ( 1985).
The only defendant named in this action is Rikers Island Correctional Facility, a division
of the New York City Department of Correction ("NYC-DOC"), which is, in turn, an agency of
the City ofNew York. The New York City Charter provides that suits must be brought against
the City of New York and not its individual agencies. See N.Y.C . Charter§ 396 ("All 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
3

law."); J enkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007). Quince cannot
substitute the City of New York as a defendant, because he does not allege any unconstitutional
policy or custom attributable to the City of New York. Therefore, Quince's§ 1983 claim against
the NYC-DOC is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 28 U.S.
C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the City of New York will not be substituted as a defendant.
In addition to naming an improper defendant, the complaint as submitted fails to comply
with the dictates of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The allegations of "guard
brutality" and inadequate medical care are vague and unsupported by any factual details.
In light of this Court's duty to liberally construe prose complaints, Quince is given 30
days leave to file an amended complaint. Quince is directed that any amended complaint must
comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in that it must clearly state the
grounds for relief and include legible factual allegations, including the dates and details of
specific incidents. It must also name the individual defendants who are responsible for the
alleged deprivation of Quince's rights and describe what each defendant did or did not do in
violation of his rights. The amended complaint must be captioned "Amended Complaint," and
bear the same docket number as this order.

4

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a
claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). All proceedings shall be stayed for 30 days. If
plaintiff fails to replead within 30 days as directed by this Order, judgment dismissing the
complaint 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 purpose of an appeal. See
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

Ros {ynn 'R. Jvl.aus koyf

ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
October 25, 2017

5