McKoy v. Suffolk County Correction et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM & ORDER re: 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as against the Suffolk County Correction and WITHOUT PREJUDICE as against Sheriff DeMarco. Plaintiffs' clai ms against the unidentified Defendants shall proceed and the Court ORDERS service of the Summonses and Complaint upon these Defendants by the USMS. The Clerk of the Court is further ORDERED to serve a copy of the Complaint together with this Order on the Suffolk County Attorney and the Suffolk Co. Attorney's Office is requested to attempt to ascertain the full names of the unidentified Suffolk Co. Corrections Officers and medical professionals described in the Complaint and to provide their names and addresses where these Defendants can be served to the Court and to Plaintiff within 30 days of the date that this Order is served upon it. Once the information is provided, Plaintiff's complaint shall be deemed amended to reflect the full name of the unnamed Defendants, Summonses shall be issued, and the USMS shall serve them. The Court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 3/3/2014. (C/M Plaintiff )(Nohs, Bonnie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
JERRY QUINN MCKOY,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
14-CV-0249(JS)(AKT)
-against-
SUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTION, SUFFOLK
COUNTY SHERIFF VINCENT F. DEMARCO,
SCC NURSE ADMINISTRATOR, SCC NURSE
JANE DOE, SCC NURSE JANE DOE, SCC
NURSE JOHN DOE, SCC HEAD DOCTOR,
SCC DOCTOR JANE DOE, SCC DOCTOR
JANE DOE, SCC DOCTOR JANE DOE, SCC
DOCTOR JOHN DOE, SCC PHYSCH [SIC]
DOCTOR JOHN DOE, SCC OFFICER JOHN
DOE, SCC OFFICER JOHN DOE, SCC
OFFICER JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Jerry Quinn McKoy, pro se
00-A-3018
Mid-State Correctional Facility
PO Box 2500
Marcy, NY 13403
For Defendants:
No appearances.
SEYBERT, District Judge:
On January 2, 2014, incarcerated pro se plaintiff Jerry
Quinn McKoy (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in this Court pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against “Suffolk County
Correction”
(“the
Jail”),
Suffolk
County
Sheriff
Vincent
F.
DeMarco, and thirteen unidentified individuals all of whom are
alleged to be medical professionals or corrections officers working
at the Jail (together, “Defendants”), accompanied by an application
to proceed in forma pauperis.
Upon
review
of
the
declaration
in
support
of
the
application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that
Plaintiff is qualified to commence this action without prepayment
of
the
filing
fee.
See
28
U.S.C.
§§
1914(a);
1915(a)(1).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED.
However, for the reasons that follow, the Complaint is
sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as against the Jail and WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
as
against
Sheriff
DeMarco
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).
BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff’s brief, handwritten Complaint, submitted on
the Court’s Section 1983 complaint form, alleges the following in
its entirety:2
On October 19 at Approx. 2:34 pm I had a
seizure do to not recieving my medication for
Approx. 3 weeks. While having the seizure I
fell over a storage box that you are allowed
to have in your cell. In the process I fell
over the box and reinjured my back.
The officer that was on duty for 1 south west
had to be informed that I was having a seizure
by other inmates that heard me while I was
having convulion even though he was only about
15 to 20 feet away. He did not leave his desk
to seek what the noise was. He then made a
call to medical and informed them that I was
having a seizure.
1
The following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint and are
presumed to be true for the purpose of this Memorandum and Order.
2
Plaintiff’s allegations are reproduced here exactly as they
appear in the Complaint and errors in spelling, punctuation and
grammar have not been corrected or noted.
2
Two to three officers came with medical. I was
dragged out by my shirt and placed on
streacher and was transfer to medical. I had
my vital signs checked and was left on the
streacher for Approx. 1 hour. I was then seen
by the Doctor (Kim) whom gave me my medication
and told me that doctor (Treanna) doc (T) had
took over prescribing me my medical medication
but he’s a phycological doctor and was not
authorize to do so.
(Compl. ¶ II.D.)
As a result, Plaintiff claims to have suffered
injury to his back and claims to have not received any medical
treatment
while
at
the
Jail.3
(Compl.
¶
III.)
For
relief,
Plaintiff seeks to recover a monetary award of $25 million in
compensatory damages and an addition $5 million “in punitive
damages for reckless or callous indifference.” (Compl. ¶ V.)
DISCUSSION
I.
In Forma Pauperis Application
Upon review of Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the
application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that
Plaintiff is qualified to commence this action without prepayment
of the filing fees.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Therefore,
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
II.
Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Section 1915 of Title 28 requires a district court to
dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the action is frivolous
3
Plaintiff also alleges that he has not received any medical
treatment since his transfer to the Downstate Correctional Facility
(“Downstate”) but has not named Downstate as a defendant nor does
he seek any relief against it.
3
or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from
such
1915A(b).
relief.
See
28
U.S.C.
§§
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii),
The Court is required to dismiss the action as soon as
it makes such a determination.
See id. § 1915A(b).
Courts are obliged to construe the pleadings of a pro se
plaintiff liberally. See Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537
F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008); McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197,
200 (2d Cir. 2004).
However, a complaint must plead sufficient
facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955,
1974, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (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, 129 S.
Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (citations omitted).
The
plausibility standard requires “more than a sheer possibility that
a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
Id. at 678; accord Wilson v.
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 671 F.3d 120, 128 (2d Cir. 2011).
While
“‘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.’”
at
678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
4
Iqbal, 556 U.S.
III.
Section 1983
Section 1983 provides that
[e]very person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes
to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States . . . to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the
party injured . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1983; accord Rehberg v. Paulk, --- U.S. ----, 132 S.
Ct. 1497, 1501–02, 182 L. Ed. 2d 593 (2012).
under
Section
1983,
a
plaintiff
must
To state a claim
“‘allege
that
(1)
the
challenged conduct was attributable at least in part to a person
who was acting under color of state law and (2) the conduct
deprived the plaintiff of a right guaranteed under the Constitution
of the United States.’”
Rae v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 693 F. Supp. 2d
217, 223 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting Snider v. Dylag, 188 F.3d 51, 53
(2d Cir. 1999)).
A.
Claim Against the Jail
It
is
well-established
that
“under
New
York
law,
departments that are merely administrative arms of a municipality
do
not
have
a
legal
identity
separate
and
apart
municipality and, therefore, cannot sue or be sued.”
from
the
Davis v.
Lynbrook Police Dep’t, 224 F. Supp. 2d 463, 477 (E.D.N.Y. 2002);
see also Hawkins v. Nassau Cnty. Corr. Fac., 781 F. Supp. 2d 107,
109 at n. 1 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (dismissing claims against Nassau
County Jail because it is an “administrative arm [] of the County
5
of Nassau, and thus lacks the capacity to sue or be sued as a
separate entity”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Thus,
Plaintiff’s claim against the Jail is not plausible because the
Jail has no legal identity separate and apart from Suffolk County.
Accordingly, this claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See Trahan v.
Suffolk Cnty. Corr. Fac., 12–CV–4353, 2012 WL 5904730, *3 (E.D.N.Y.
Nov. 26, 2012) (dismissing claims against the Suffolk County Jail
because it “is an administrative arm of Suffolk County, without an
independent legal identity.”).
B.
Claim Against Sheriff DeMarco
In order to state a claim for relief under Section 1983
against an individual defendant, a plaintiff must allege the
personal involvement of the defendant in the alleged constitutional
deprivation.
Farid v. Elle, 593 F.3d 233, 249 (2d Cir. 2010).
The
Supreme Court held in Iqbal that “[b]ecause vicarious liability is
inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that
each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own
individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”
676.
556 U.S. at
Thus, a plaintiff asserting a Section 1983 claim against a
supervisory official in his individual capacity must sufficiently
plead
that
the
supervisor
constitutional deprivation.
was
personally
involved
in
the
Rivera v. Fischer, 655 F. Supp. 2d
235, 237 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). A complaint based upon a violation under
Section 1983 that does not allege the personal involvement of a
6
defendant fails as a matter of law.
See Johnson v. Barney, 360 F.
App’x 199, 201 (2d Cir. 2010).
As is readily apparent, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not
include any factual allegations sufficient to demonstrate any
personal involvement by Sheriff DeMarco and it appears Plaintiff
seeks
to
impose
liability
position he holds.
simply
because
of
the
supervisory
Consequently, the Section 1983 claim asserted
against Sheriff DeMarco is not plausible and is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
C.
Claims Against the John/Jane Doe Defendants
Though thin, the Court declines to sua sponte dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims against the unidentified medical professionals
and/or
corrections
Accordingly,
the
officer
Court
he
ORDERS
encountered
service
of
at
the
the
Jail.
Summonses
and
Complaint upon the Defendants by the United States Marshal Service
(“USMS”).
However, the USMS will not be able to effect service of
the Summonses and the Complaint on the unidentified Defendants
without more information.
The Second Circuit has held that
district courts must provide incarcerated pro se litigants with
reasonable assistance in investigating the identity of such “John
Doe” defendants.
See Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 75–76 (2d
Cir. 1997) (per curiam).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the
Clerk of the Court serve a copy of the Complaint together with this
7
Order
on
the
Suffolk
County
Attorney.
The
Suffolk
County
Attorney’s Office is requested to attempt to ascertain the full
names of the unnamed Nurse Administrator, Head Doctor, Doctors,
Nurses, and Corrections Officers who are described in the Complaint
(see Compl. ¶ II. B, C, and D) and to provide to the Court and to
Plaintiff their names and the address(es) where these individuals
can be served within thirty (30) days of the date that this Order
is served upon it.
Once the information is provided to the Court
by the Suffolk County Attorney’s Office, Plaintiff’s Complaint
shall be deemed amended to reflect the full names of the unnamed
Defendants, Summonses shall be issued as to these Defendants, and
the USMS shall serve them.
The Suffolk County Attorney need not
undertake to defend or indemnify these individual at this juncture.
This Order merely provides a means by which Plaintiff may properly
name and serve the unnamed Defendants as instructed by the Second
Circuit in Valentin.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, however the Complaint is
sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as against the Jail and WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as against Sheriff DeMarco for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).
Plaintiffs’ claims against the unidentified individual
Defendants shall proceed and the Court ORDERS service of the
8
Summonses and Complaint upon these Defendants by the USMS.
The
Clerk of the Court is further ORDERED to serve a copy of the
Complaint together with this Order on the Suffolk County Attorney
and the Suffolk County Attorney’s Office is requested to attempt to
ascertain
the
full
names
of
the
unidentified
Suffolk
County
Corrections Officers and medical professionals who are described in
the Complaint and to provide their names and address(es) where
these Defendants can be served to the Court and to Plaintiff within
thirty (30) days of the date that this Order is served upon it.
Once the information is provided to the Court by the Suffolk County
Attorney’s Office, Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be deemed amended to
reflect the full name of the unnamed Defendants, Summonses shall be
issued as to these Defendants, and the USMS shall serve them.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith
and therefore in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose of
any appeal.
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45,
82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).
The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy
of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated: March
3 , 2014
Central Islip, New York
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?