Spavone v. N.Y.S. Department of Correctional Services et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 6 MOTION to Dismiss filed by N.Y.S. Department of Correctional Services. DOC's April 12, 2010 motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's claims against DOCS is dismissed with prejudice. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 5/27/2010) (tro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------X : STEVEN SPAVONE, : Plaintiff, : : -v: : N.Y.S. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL : SERVICES, JIM HILLREGAL, JOHN BENDLIN, : and STEVE MADISON, : Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------X APPEARANCES: For plaintiff: Steven Spavone, pro se #03-A-4330 Woodbourne Correctional Facility 99 Prison Road P.O. Box 1000 Woodbourne, NY 12788 For defendants: John E. Knudsen State of New York Attorney General's Office 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 DENISE COTE, District Judge:

10 Civ. 0833 (DLC) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff Steven Spavone ("plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleges that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Woodbourne Correctional Facility ("Woodbourne"), which constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to friable

asbestos while performing demolition and removal work in an area of Woodbourne. On February 3, 2010, plaintiff filed this action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"), Jim Hillregal, a Plant Supervisor at Woodbourne, John Bendlin, a Maintenance Supervisor at Woodbourne, and Steve Madison, a Maintenance General Mechanic at Woodbourne. Plaintiff claims that

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. On April

12, defendant DOCS filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. motion became fully submitted on May 7. DOCS argues that it is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Amendment states: The Eleventh The

"The judicial power of the United States

shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." U.S. Const. amend. XI; Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 "[A]s a general rule, state

F.3d 355, 361 (2d Cir. 2009).

governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or unless Congress has abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity when acting pursuant to its authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth

2

Amendment."

Gollomp, 568 F.3d at 366 (citation omitted).

"The

immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment extends beyond the states themselves to state agents and state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state." Id. (citation

omitted); see also Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). Plaintiff's claim against DOCS for damages is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Although the complaint names DOCS as a

defendant, the real party in interest is the State of New York. See Santiago v. New York State Dept. of Corr. Servs., 945 F.2d 25, 28 n.1 (2d Cir. 1991). sovereign immunity. New York State has not waived its

Nor has Congress, through § 1983, abrogated See id. at 30. Consequently, plaintiff's Davis

the state's immunity.

claim against DOCS is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 101 (2d Cir. 2002) (dismissing damages claim against DOCS based on sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment). Plaintiff argues that DOCS is not entitled to sovereign immunity based on the Supreme Court's decision in Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Monell, however, applies only to local municipalities

and does not abrogate sovereign immunity for states or state instrumentalities. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n.54.

Plaintiff's argument is thus without merit.

3