Henry v. City of New York

Background

Michael Henry, who is incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility and is representing himself, filed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials. He alleged that Department of Corrections employees violated his constitutional rights while he was detained in a facility on Rikers Island. The court also understood the complaint to assert claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The court had previously granted Henry permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

The complaint referred to Correction Officer Simmons and alleged that Simmons was personally involved in failing to protect Henry from an assault on May 28, 2023. It also referred to unidentified Department of Corrections employees in connection with allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement and denial of medical care. The opinion states that Henry alleged he was housed in a vestibule for five days without a toilet and was denied access to medical care, during a period on or around May 28, 2023, through June 1, 2023.

Rulings

The court dismissed Henry’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction because, under New York City law, a city agency generally is not an entity that can be sued. Because Henry intended to assert claims against the City of New York, the court directed the Clerk of Court to replace DOC with the City of New York in the case caption. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to defenses the City may later assert.

The court also directed the Clerk to add Correction Officer Simmons and John Doe Officers 1–5 as defendants. The court explained that the Doe officers were placeholders because it was unclear how many officers were involved. This amendment was also without prejudice to defenses those defendants may later assert.

Identification and amended complaint

Under a procedure requiring assistance in identifying an unknown defendant, the court directed the New York City Law Department to determine the identities and badge numbers of the John Doe Officers and the addresses where the defendants could be served. The Law Department must provide that information to Henry and the court within 30 days of the order, by September 4, 2024.

Within 30 days after receiving the information, Henry must file an amended complaint naming the John Doe Officers and providing Correction Officer Simmons’s full name. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it will screen the amended complaint and may later ask the newly added defendants to waive formal delivery of the summons and complaint.

Other directives

The court requested that the City of New York waive service of summons. It also held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. Under that rule, the City must serve responses to specified discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in its responses.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Correction. It directed the Clerk to add the City of New York, Correction Officer Simmons, and John Doe Officers 1–5 as defendants and to amend the caption. The order otherwise set procedures for identifying defendants, filing an amended complaint, service, and discovery; it did not decide the merits of Henry’s underlying constitutional or disability-rights allegations. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order.