Markou v. The City of New York

Background

John Markou, who was detained at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center (OBCC), filed this self-represented lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights during his detention. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Markou originally filed the complaint with 62 other OBCC detainees. The court later ordered that each person’s claims be separated into an individual civil action. The allegations in Markou’s case were written from the perspective of the people who signed the original complaint and concerned alleged denial of medical care, conditions at OBCC, and retaliation for complaints about those conditions. The complaint did not state that Markou personally experienced the alleged denial of medical care or made the alleged complaints. It also did not identify facts about Markou’s own experiences or explain how a particular defendant violated his rights.

The named defendants were the City of New York, OBCC, Mayor Eric Adams, and Commissioner Lynelle Maginley-Liddie. Correction officers were mentioned in the complaint but were not named as defendants.

Screening standard

Because Markou was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court must also dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints generously, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Rulings on the defendants

The court dismissed OBCC as a defendant because it is a jail operated by the New York City Department of Correction, and the department is a city agency that generally cannot be sued separately under the New York City Charter. The court stated that any claims Markou intended to bring against OBCC could be asserted against the City of New York.

The court dismissed the official-capacity claims against Adams and Maginley-Liddie because such claims are treated as claims against the City of New York, which was already named as a defendant. The court stated that those claims may proceed against the City.

The court also dismissed the personal-capacity claims against Adams and Maginley-Liddie. A claim under § 1983 requires facts showing that each defendant was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation; a supervisor cannot be held liable merely because someone the supervisor oversees allegedly violated a person’s rights. The complaint did not allege facts showing Adams’s or Maginley-Liddie’s personal involvement.

Leave to amend

The court granted Markou 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify the individual people who allegedly violated his rights, including correction officers if Markou intends to sue them. If he does not know an officer’s name, he may use a description such as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe,” but he remains responsible for identifying that person before the applicable limitations period expires.

The amended complaint must provide the relevant facts for each claim and defendant, including the people involved, what each person did or failed to do, the approximate date and location, the injuries Markou suffered, and the relief he seeks. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so facts or claims Markou wants to preserve must be repeated.

Disposition

The court granted Markou leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days and dismissed his claims against OBCC, Adams, and Maginley-Liddie. The order did not state that those dismissals were with or without prejudice. The court warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.