Grice v. Nassau County Correction Center et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS service of the Summons and Complaint upon Officer Sperling by the United States Marshal Service. 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. The Clerk of the Cou rt is further directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se Plaintiff. Plaintiff's claims against the Jail are not plausible and are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 2/6/2017. C/M (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
ANTHONY GRICE,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
17-CV-0476(JS)(ARL)

-againstNASSAU COUNTY CORRECTION CENTER
and OFFICER SPERLING,

Defendants.
----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Anthony Grice, pro se
9609048
Nassau County Correctional Center
100 Carman Avenue
East Meadow, NY 11554
For Defendants:

No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:
On
Anthony

January

Grice

23,

2017,

(“Plaintiff”)

incarcerated

filed

a

pro

Complaint

se

in

plaintiff

this

Court

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against the Nassau
County

Correction

Center

(“the

Jail”),

and

Officer

Sperling

(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.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS service of the Summons and

Complaint upon Officer Sperling by the United States Marshal

Service (“USMS”).1
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: February
6 , 2017
Central Islip, New York

1

Plaintiff’s claims against the Jail are not plausible because
the Jail has no independent legal identity. 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 from the municipality and, therefore,
cannot sue or be sued.” Davis v. Lynbrook Police Dep’t, 224 F.
Supp. 2d 463, 477 (E.D.N.Y. 2002); see also Hawkins v. Nassau
Cty. 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 of Nassau, and thus
lacks the capacity to be sued as a separate entity”) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted); Trahan v. Suffolk Cty.
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.”). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against
the Jail are not plausible and are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2