Lane v. NYS Office of Mental Health et al

Filing 33

OPINION AND ORDER re: 13 MOTION to Dismiss filed by NYS Office of Mental Health, 26 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) filed by NYC Department of Corrections. Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted. The Clerk of Court shall close this case and shall not charge plaintiff the filing fee for this action. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 1/11/2012) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------- X
:
ANDRE LANE,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
N.Y.S. OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH;
:
N.Y.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
:
:
Defendants.
----------------------------------------- X

11 Civ. 1941 (DLC)
OPINION AND ORDER

APPEARANCES:
For pro se plaintiff:
Andre Lane
# 86226
Central New York Psychiatric Center
P.O. Box 300, River Road
Marcy, NY 13403
For defendant New York State Office of Mental Health:
Jamie I. Roth
Assistant Attorney General
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271-0332
For defendant New York City Department of Correction:
Joseph A. Maratullo
New York City Law Department
100 Church Street, Room 3-168
New York, NY 10007

DENISE COTE, District Judge:
Pro se plaintiff Andre Lane (“Lane” or “plaintiff”) brings
this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Article 10 of the
New York State Mental Health Law, against defendants New York
1

State Office of Mental Health (“OMH”) and New York City
Department of Correction (“DOC”).

Lane was housed at various

facilities on Rikers Island while awaiting trial to determine
whether he would be civilly committed, under Article 10 of the
New York Mental Hygiene Law (“Article 10”), as a sex offender
requiring long-term specialized treatment.

He alleges, inter

alia, that as an identified sex offender, he “was in constant
fear [for] his life and safety” during the more than two months
he spent on Rikers Island.

He also alleges that, as a civil

detainee, he should not have been strip searched, shackled and
placed in leg irons.
complaint.

Both defendants have moved to dismiss the

For the following reasons, defendants’ motions to

dismiss the complaint are granted.

BACKGROUND
The following facts are drawn from the complaint and the
plaintiff’s opposition to the pending motions.
to be true for the purposes of this motion.

They are assumed

Lane completed his

criminal sentence on August 25, 2006, and since that time has
been in the custody of OMH.

On May 6, 2009, Lane was

transferred from the Central New York Psychiatric Center
(“CNYPC”) in Marcy, New York, to Rikers Island.

Lane advised

the correction officer fingerprinting him that he was being held
2

pursuant to Article 10 and that he should not be housed with
criminal detainees.

Shortly thereafter, Lane was removed from

the holding cell to another cell.

He was interviewed by a

psychiatrist, and then correction officers took him out to be
searched.

After discussion about whether Lane was subject to

strip-search, the correction officers decided not to strip
search Lane and returned him to his cell.
Lane was taken to Hart’s Island, where he remained until
approximately 2 a.m. on May 7.

A psychiatrist interviewed Lane

and told the correction officer to confiscate Lane’s shoe laces
because he was on suicide watch.

Lane was placed in a suicide

watch cell in C-95, although he contends that he has no history
of suicidal behavior.
Lane contends that most detainees awaiting civil commitment
as sex offenders are transferred to West Facility, where they
are permitted to retain their possessions, but he was
transferred on May 8 to the general population at Rikers Island.
Lane spent three days in the general population.
On May 8, correction officers at Rikers Island woke Lane
and searched his possessions.

Lane was strip-searched,

handcuffed to a criminal detainee and taken to the “holding pen”
of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County.
Lane met his attorney at noon and then was returned to the
3

holding pen with criminal detainees until approximately 7 p.m.
Lane was then sent to West Facility where his property was
searched and some was confiscated.
On May 12, correction officers again searched Lane’s
property.

He was then handcuffed, shackled and taken to the

Supreme Court in Kings County for trial.

After his jury trial

for civil commitment was completed, on May 18, Lane was
transferred to the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island; he
contends that he should have been returned to the CNYPC.

Lane

alleges that he remained at Rikers Island for 61 days, until
July 7, although his attorney informed Lane at some point that
an order to return him to CNYPC had already been signed.

Lane

alleges that he “was in constant fear [for] his life and safety”
throughout his stay at Rikers Island.
On March 15, 2011, Lane commenced this lawsuit, seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive
damages.1

1

OMH moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Rules

Although the Chief Judge directed plaintiff to file a Prisoner
Authorization for the collection of filing fees, it is not clear
that he is a prisoner for purposes of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”), which defines a prisoner as “any person
incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of,
convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for,
violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of
parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.”
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h). The Clerk of Court has not yet charged
plaintiff the filing fee for this action and is directed not to
do so.
4

12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on
August 25, 2011.

The Court received plaintiff’s opposition to

OMH’s motion on November 7.2
On November 4, 2011, DOC filed its motion to dismiss the
complaint.

The Court granted plaintiff until December 5, 2011

to file an amended complaint curing any deficiencies in the
complaint or file his opposition to the motion.

The Court

received plaintiff’s opposition to DOC’s motion on December 16.

DISCUSSION
OMH moves to dismiss based on the doctrine of sovereign
immunity.

“[A]s a general rule, state 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 Amendment.”

Gollomp

v. Spitzer, 568 F.3 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009) (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.”
2

Id.

In his opposition, plaintiff contends that he did not receive
copies of two of the decisions cited in OMH’s memorandum of law.
OMH represents that these two cases had been previously mailed
to plaintiff and have again been provided to plaintiff.
5

(citation omitted); see also Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984).
OMH is an arm of the state.
its sovereign immunity.

New York State has not waived

Nor has Congress, through § 1983,

abrogated the state’s immunity.

See Santiago v. New York State

Dept. of Corr. Servs., 945 F.2d 25, 31 (2d Cir. 1991).
Consequently, plaintiff’s claims against OMH, an agency of the
State of New York, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and must
be dismissed.3
DOC moves to dismiss on the basis that it is not a suable
entity.
law.

An entity’s capacity to be sued is determined by state

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b).

The New York City Charter

provides, at Chapter 17, section 396, that “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
law.”

3

Although the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits seeking
prospective injunctive relief against state officials acting in
violation of federal law, see Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 15960 (1908), plaintiff has not amended his complaint to name a
state official despite being granted an opportunity to do so.
Moreover, plaintiff is no longer confined at Rikers Island, and
it is therefore unclear whether claims for prospective
injunctive relief would, in any case, be moot.
6

As an agency of the City of New York, DOC is not an entity
that can be sued.

See Hemrie v. City of New York, No. 96 Civ.

213 (DLC) , 2000 WL 1234594, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2000)
(citing Echevarria v. Dep't of Corr. Servs., 48 F. Supp. 2d 388,
391 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)).

Plaintiff's claims against DOC must

therefore be dismissed. 4

CONCLUSION
Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted.

The Clerk of

Court shall close this case and shall not charge plaintiff the
filing fee for this action.

SO ORDERED:
Dated:

New York, New York
January 11, 2012

United

ct Judge

Plaintiff was granted leave to amend to cure the deficiencies
of his complaint but did not submit an amended complaint naming
the City of New York in lieu of DOC.

4

7

COPIES MAILED TO:

Andre Lane
#86226
P.O. Box 300
River Road
Marcy, NY 13403

Joseph A. Marutollo
Assistant Corporation Counsel
New York City Law Department
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007

Jaime I. Roth
Assistant Attorney General
120 Broadway
New York, NY 10271