Smith v. Department of Correction of New York City
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-06086
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Smith v. Department of Correction, Judge Koeltl dismissed claims against the agency, added New York City, and ordered service and discovery.
Dacquan Smith, the New York City Department of Correction, the City of New York, and the seven individual defendants identified in the service request. Smith’s claims against the Department of Correction were dismissed, while the City was added as a defendant and the action proceeded toward service and discovery.
What happened
In Smith v. Department of Correction, Dacquan Smith, who is incarcerated, brought a constitutional-rights lawsuit without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court ruled that New York City’s Department of Correction cannot be sued as a separate city agency. Because Smith clearly intended to sue New York City, the court replaced the Department of Correction with the City as a defendant without deciding any defenses the City might later raise.
Judge John G. Koeltl dismissed Smith’s claims against the Department of Correction, directed that the City and seven individual defendants be notified and asked to accept service, and required the defendants to answer specified prisoner-discovery requests within 120 days.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Department of Correction of New York City · No. 1:24-cv-06086
- John Koeltl
- Aug. 19, 2024
Background
Dacquan Smith brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The opinion states that Smith is incarcerated at Otis Bantam Correctional Center on Rikers Island. The court had previously granted permission for him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Screening standard
The court explained that it must dismiss all or part of a prisoner’s complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it must read a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest claims it reasonably suggests.
Department of Correction
The court held that the New York City Department of Correction is a city agency that cannot be sued as a separate entity under New York City law. The court therefore dismissed Smith’s claims against the Department of Correction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Because Smith clearly intended to assert claims against the City of New York, the court treated the complaint as asserting claims against the City and directed the Clerk of Court to replace the Department of Correction with the City in the caption under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The court stated that this change does not prevent the City from asserting any defenses.
Service and discovery
The court directed the Clerk to notify the Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order. It requested that the City, six specified correctional officials, and Commissioner Lynelle Maginley-Liddle waive service of summons.
The court also held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified discovery requests. The defendants must serve responses to those requests within 120 days after the order and must quote each request word-for-word in their responses.
Disposition
Judge John G. Koeltl dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Correction, directed that the City of New York be added as a defendant, requested that the defendants waive service, and ordered that Local Civil Rule 33.2 apply. The opinion does not decide the underlying constitutional claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.