Montes v. Miller

Background

Germaine Montes, proceeding without a lawyer and incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility (GHCF), filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks damages, injunctive relief, and a declaration concerning past events. The defendants named in the complaint include GHCF Superintendent Mark Miller, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), unidentified “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” defendants, and other unidentified GHCF employees. The court had previously allowed Montes to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Screening standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or their employees. At screening, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims against DOCCS

The court dismissed all of Montes’s Section 1983 claims against DOCCS. The court held that DOCCS is an agency of New York and therefore an arm of the State. The Eleventh Amendment protects states and state instrumentalities from these claims for money damages, injunctive relief, and retrospective declaratory relief. The court also stated that neither Congress nor New York had removed that protection for Montes’s Section 1983 claims. The dismissal was based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the statutory requirement to dismiss claims seeking monetary relief from an immune defendant.

Adding identified defendants

Although Montes referred to several people as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” defendants in the caption, he identified them in the complaint by name or position. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the court directed the Clerk of Court to add these individuals as defendants:

- “PH Ashonda” - The GHCF Deputy Superintendent of Health Services - Correctional Officer Celice - Correctional Officer Pellot - Correctional Sergeant Fox - Correctional Sergeant Laino - Correctional Officer Jackson - Correctional Sergeant Cahon - Correctional Officer Williams - The GHCF Deputy Superintendent of Security

The court stated that adding these individuals was without prejudice to any defenses they may assert.

Service on identified defendants

Because Montes was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms, and provide the paperwork to the Marshals Service for service on Mark Miller and the ten identified defendants. The court extended the service period so that service would be due 90 days after the summonses were issued. If service is not completed within that period, Montes should request an extension of time. The court also directed Montes to notify the court of any address change.

Identifying additional defendants

The court found that the complaint provided enough information for the New York Attorney General to identify six otherwise unidentified defendants and provide their service addresses. These included people connected to an emergency clinic visit, medication distribution during a lockdown, work on GHCF’s G-Block during specified shifts, the response to a facility lockdown, and two correctional sergeants assigned or present on G-Block.

The court ordered the Attorney General to provide the identities, any appropriate shield numbers, and service addresses within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Montes must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified individuals and providing their service addresses. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue another order concerning service.

Disposition

The court dismissed Montes’s claims against DOCCS, added the identified individuals as defendants, directed service on the identified individual defendants, and ordered the Attorney General to identify the remaining defendants. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Montes’s underlying claims against the individual defendants.