Luna v. Georgy

Background

Andy Luna, proceeding without a lawyer, sued AC Georgy, AC Collado, Correction Captain Young, and the Department of Correction, which the court understood to mean the New York City Department of Correction. He sought damages and alleged violations of federal constitutional rights and state law. The court understood his federal claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing suits for constitutional violations by state or local government actors.

Luna alleged that, while held at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center, he was locked in his cell for four days from November 21 through November 25, 2023. He alleged that he was denied recreation, religious services, law-library access, phone communications, video visits, visits with counsel, family calls, showers, basic supplies, and medical treatment. He also alleged exposure to MK9 and MK4 chemical sprays, repeated strip searches, cold food, and meals served without hair coverings, gloves, or aprons. He requested $3 million for himself and the same amount for other prisoners.

Rulings

The court denied Luna’s request to proceed as a class action because a person representing himself without a lawyer cannot represent other people in federal court. It dismissed without prejudice any claims he asserted on behalf of other prisoners. The court stated that it was not deciding whether those claims had merit.

The court dismissed Luna’s claims against the Department of Correction for failure to state a claim because the agency is not a separate entity that can be sued. In light of Luna’s self-represented status, the court treated those claims as claims against New York City. It then dismissed the claims against the City because Luna did not allege that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violations. The court also dismissed the claims against the individual defendants because Luna did not allege facts showing that each individual was directly and personally involved. The order separately dismissed the individual defendants’ claims against them in their official capacities and treated those claims as claims against the City.

Leave to Amend and Other Orders

The court granted Luna 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint, identify the people allegedly involved, and provide facts about each person’s actions or failures to act, the dates and locations, his injuries, and the relief requested. The court allowed him to use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if he did not know a person’s name, while noting that doing so would not pause the three-year limitations period for his § 1983 claims.

The court stated that if Luna did not timely amend without showing good cause, it would dismiss the action; dismiss his claims on behalf of others without prejudice; dismiss his federal claims for failure to state a claim; and decline to consider his state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction. No summonses would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.