Ceparano v. Suffolk County, NY et al

Filing 41

ORDER granting 37 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement caption to include Suffolk County as the lead deft. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a summons, and the United States Marshals Service shall serve the summons, the Amended Complaint, and a copy of this order upon the County of Suffolk. In accordance with Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order upon all parties, including mailing a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff, and shall record such service on the docket. CM to pro se plaintiff on 12/7/2011. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 12/6/2011. (Glueckert, Lisa)

--J •.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DEC 0 6 2011 J

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------X

*

--------------------------------------------------ANTHONY J. CEPARANO,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
10-CV-2030 (SJF)(AKT)

-againstTHE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, THOMAS SALADINO
(C.O. #1207), GEORGE PELLETIER (C.O. #1220),
MICHAEL URBAN (C.O. #1158), JAMES TOTTEN
(C.O. #1094), JAMES LEYKIS (C.O. #1153),
Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
FEUERSTEIN, J.:

On May 4, 2010, incarcerated prose plaintiff Anthony J. Ceparano ("plaintiff')
commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs original complaint exceeded
two hundred and fifty (250) pages and named over four hundred (400) defendants. [Docket
Entry No. 1]. On December 15, 2010, the Court sua sponte dismissed the action, but granted
plaintiffleave to amend the complaint. [Docket Entry No. 12].
Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint") [Docket
Entry No. 15], which was approximately one hundred (1 00) pages long and largely "fail[ed] to
comply" with the Court's December 2010 order. On June 10,2011, the Court dismissed the
Amended Complaint except with respect to Plaintiffs claims of "excessive use of force and/or
deprivation oflegal property" as against five (5) corrections officers employed at the Suffolk
County Correctional Facility. [Docket Entry No. 16].

1

On November 4, 2011, plaintiff filed a "motion to amend/fix" the caption of complaint to
add Suffolk County as the "lead defendant" in the case. [Docket Entry No. 37]. Plaintiff argues
that pages one (1) through four (4) and pages seventy-two (72) through seventy-four (74) ofthe
Amended Complaint "clearly allege[] Monell liability ... based on a municipal policy and
custom, and a pattern and practice of allowing the use of excessive force .... and failure to
properly train, supervise, and discipline jail C.O's regarding these violations." Id. at 1-2.
Counsel for defendants has opposed the instant motion. [Docket Entry No. 40].
"[L]eave to amend a pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be freely
given whenjustice so requires." Leonelli v. Pennwalt Corp., 887 F.2d 1195, 1198 (2d Cir. 1989)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, leave to amend "will be denied when
an amendment is offered in bad faith, would cause undue delay or prejudice, or would be futile."

Plaintiff alleges a series of incidents over a number of months in which he alleges that he
was subjected to excessive force or had personal property destroyed. Reading the Amended
Complaint liberally, and interpreting the allegations to raise the strongest arguments that they
suggest, the Court finds that plaintiff has alleged a facially plausible Monell claim against
Suffolk County. Therefore, plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint in order to add Suffolk
County as a defendant is granted. See Toliver v. City of New York, Nos. 10 Civ. 3165, 10 Civ.
6619,2011 WL 4964665, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2011); see also Kimbrough v. Town of
Dewitt Police Dep't, No. 08 CV 3, 2010 WL 3724121, at *11 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2010).
The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a summons, and the United States Marshals
Service shall serve the summons, the Amended Complaint, and a copy of this order upon the

2

County of Suffolk. In accordance with Rule 77(d) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order upon all parties, including mailing a copy of this
order to the pro se plaintiff, and shall record such service on the docket.

SO ORDERED.

15(;/~)-J~/

Dated:

December 6, 2011
Central Islip, New York

3

Sandra J. Ffrstein
United States District Judge