Padilla v. Westchester County et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF SERVICE: The Court dismisses the plaintiffs claims against the Westchester Department of Correction for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a Summons a s to Defendants Westchester County; Medical Department Dir Yozzo; Admin. Warden Anthony Amicucci; Warden Ernest Lewis; Captain Beth Ehren; Corrections Officer Claudio Lope Jr., Shield #1460; Captain Randy Watkins; Sergeant Sandra Boyd, Shield # 83; S ergeant Coley Adrian, Shield #27; Sergeant Christopher Jacobs, Shield #83; Sergeant Vincent Palomba, Shield # 202; Sergeant Karim Haspil, Shield #116s; Corrections Officer Harold Macdonald, Shield #761; Corrections Officer Alexander Davis; Sergeant P atrick Morris, Shield #89; Corrections Officer Scott Crerand, Shield #1418; and Corrections Officer Abraham. The plaintiff is directed to serve the Summons and Complaint on the defendants within 120 days of the issuance of the Summons. If service has not been made within the 120 days, and the plaintiff has not requested an extension of time to serve within that 120 days, the Complaint may be dismissed for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rules 4 and 41 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 an appeal.. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 3/1/2012) (pl) Modified on 3/2/2012 (pl).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
EDWARD PADILLA,
Plaintiff,

12 Civ. 289 (JGK)

-against-

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER OF SERVICE

WESTCHESTER COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The plaintiff, who was until recently incarcerated at
Westchester County Department of Correction, brings this pro se
action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was
subjected to harassment and assault, and denied adequate medical
care and access to his law library in violation of his civil
rights, while he was incarcerated.

I.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by
prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an
officer or employee of a governmental entity.
1915A(a).

28 U.S.C. §

The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion

thereof, that states a frivolous or malicious claim, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480

F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).

While the law authorizes

dismissal on any of these grounds, district courts “remain
obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally.”
Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009).

Harris v.

Pro se complaints should

be read with “special solicitude” and should be interpreted to
raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest.”

Triestman v.

Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006)
(citations omitted).

II.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege both that:

(1) a right secured by the Constitution or

laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was
violated by a person acting under the color of state law.

West

v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
The plaintiff’s allegations that the Westchester County
Department of Correction violated his constitutional rights are
insufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and must
be dismissed.

The Westchester County Department of Correction

is an administrative arm of Westchester County, and
“administrative arms of municipalities ‘do not have a legal
identity separate and apart from the municipality, and cannot
sue or be sued.’”

Carroll v. City of Mount Vernon, 707 F. Supp.

2d 449, 451 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting Warner v. Village of

2

Goshen Police Dep’t, 256 F. Supp. 2d 171, 175-76 (S.D.N.Y.
2003)); see Smith v. Westchester County, 769 F. Supp. 2d 448,
455 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“[W]here both the municipality and the
municipal agency have been named as defendants, courts have
dismissed the claims against the agency.”) (collecting cases).

CONCLUSION
The Court dismisses the plaintiff’s claims against the
Westchester Department of Correction for failure to state a
claim.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a Summons as to
Defendants Westchester County; Medical Department Dir Yozzo;
Admin. Warden Anthony Amicucci; Warden Ernest Lewis; Captain
Beth Ehren; Corrections Officer Claudio Lope Jr., Shield #1460;
Captain Randy Watkins; Sergeant Sandra Boyd, Shield # 83;
Sergeant Coley Adrian, Shield #27; Sergeant Christopher Jacobs,
Shield #83; Sergeant Vincent Palomba, Shield # 202; Sergeant
Karim Haspil, Shield #116s; Corrections Officer Harold
Macdonald, Shield #761; Corrections Officer Alexander Davis;
Sergeant Patrick Morris, Shield #89; Corrections Officer Scott
Crerand, Shield #1418; and Corrections Officer Abraham.

The

plaintiff is directed to serve the Summons and Complaint on the
defendants within 120 days of the issuance of the Summons.

If

service has not been made within the 120 days, and the plaintiff

3

has not requested an extension of time to serve within that 120
days, the Complaint may be dismissed for failure to prosecute,
pursuant to Rules 4 and 41

the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.
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
purpose of an appeal.

status is denied for the
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.

438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

New York, New York
March 1, 2012
ohn G. Koeltl
States District Judge

4