Johnson v. City of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-03173
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Johnson v. City of New York, Judge Abrams dismissed claims against the Department of Correction and ordered steps to identify defendants and begin discovery.
Glenn Johnson’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction were dismissed. The City of New York, Captain Albury, Correction Officer Ceesay, and the two unidentified captains were subject to the service, identification, amended-pleading, and discovery steps ordered by the court.
What happened
Glenn Johnson, representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law over an alleged serious risk of harm at Rikers Island on March 24, 2023. He named the City of New York, the Department of Correction, several identified officials, and two unidentified captains.
The court dismissed Johnson’s claims against the Department of Correction because that agency cannot be sued. It asked the City, Captain Albury, and Correction Officer Ceesay to waive formal delivery of the lawsuit papers. It also ordered the city’s Law Department to identify the two unidentified captains so Johnson can file an amended complaint, and required the defendants to answer standard discovery requests.
This was an initial screening and case-management order, not a decision on whether Johnson’s underlying claim is valid. Judge Ronnie Abrams issued the order on June 4, 2024.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-03173
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 4, 2024
Background
Glenn Johnson, who was incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm that arose on March 24, 2023, in the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island. The defendants named in the caption were the City of New York; the New York City Department of Correction; Correction Officer Ceesay; Captain Albury; and Captains Jane Doe and John Doe. The court had previously allowed Johnson to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.
Screening and Department of Correction
Because Johnson was incarcerated and proceeded without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.
The court dismissed Johnson’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction because, as a city agency, it lacks the capacity to be sued. The order did not state that Johnson’s claims against the other defendants were dismissed.
Service and unidentified defendants
The court asked the City of New York, Captain Albury, and Correction Officer Ceesay to waive service of summons. It directed the clerk to notify the Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department and to mail the order and complaint to the Law Department.
The court found that Johnson had provided enough information for the Department of Correction to identify Captains John and Jane Doe, who were allegedly on duty in the Intake Unit of the North Infirmary Command at about 3:00 p.m. or later on March 24, 2023. The Law Department must provide the captains’ identities, badge numbers, and service addresses to Johnson and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Johnson must file an amended complaint naming them. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than add to it. The court will then screen the amended complaint.
Discovery and disposition
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. Under that rule, the defendants must serve responses to specified discovery requests within 120 days of the order and must quote each request verbatim.
Judge Ronnie Abrams therefore dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Correction, requested waivers of service from the City, Captain Albury, and Correction Officer Ceesay, ordered identification of the Doe defendants, and required the Rule 33.2 discovery responses. The order did not decide the merits of Johnson’s deliberate-indifference allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.