Cantillo v. Dept. of Corrections

Background

Richard Cantillo filed the action without a lawyer and sought permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. He alleged that, on June 27, 2024, while he was a pretrial detainee at the West Facility, correction officers strip-searched him, discarded commissary items he had purchased, and laughed at him while he was naked. The court understood his complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and under state law.

The court screened the complaint under laws requiring review of prisoner claims against government entities and employees. At this stage, the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or otherwise fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that a complaint must provide enough factual detail to make liability plausible, although allegations from a person representing himself are read liberally.

Rulings

New York City Department of Correction and City of New York. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against the New York City Department of Correction because it is a City agency that cannot be sued as a separate entity. Because Cantillo was representing himself, the court treated those claims as claims against the City of New York instead. The court also dismissed the claims against the City because Cantillo did not allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his constitutional rights. The court granted him leave to amend by naming the City and providing facts supporting such a claim.

Strip-search claim. The court understood Cantillo’s allegations about the strip search as a § 1983 claim under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches. The court explained that the legality of a strip search depends on factors including the search’s scope, how it was conducted, its justification, and where it occurred. Cantillo’s allegations did not clearly describe those facts or establish whether the search was intended to humiliate or degrade him. The court therefore dismissed the strip-search claims for failure to state a claim but granted leave to amend with additional facts.

Claims against Molina and Lander. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Louis Molina and Brad Lander because Cantillo did not allege facts showing that either person was directly and personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. The court explained that a person cannot be held liable merely because that person supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated another person’s rights. Cantillo received leave to name individuals who were personally involved and to explain what each person did.

Leave to amend and other directions

The amended complaint must replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so Cantillo must repeat any facts or claims he wants the court to consider. He must identify each defendant in the caption and explain the relevant events, dates, locations, actions, injuries, and requested relief. The court allowed 60 days to file the amended complaint, labeled with the case number and submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. No summonses would issue at that time.

The order did not dismiss the state-law claims at that stage. It stated that if Cantillo failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the court would dismiss the § 1983 claims and decline to consider the state-law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.