Lorick v. Kowlessar

Background

Bruce Lorick filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that the defendants unlawfully entered his apartment, used excessive force, and arrested him. The defendants named in the complaint were the City of New York, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (which the court understood the complaint’s reference to the “Dept of Parole Community Supervision” to mean), and six parole officers: Colin Kowlessar, Chico, Valerio, Gonzalez, Nelson, and Sterling.

Lorick was detained on Rikers Island when he filed the complaint and was proceeding without a lawyer. The court had granted him permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In reviewing the complaint, the court was required to dismiss claims that were legally insufficient, frivolous, or barred because a defendant was immune from monetary relief.

Claims Against the New York State Department

The court dismissed Lorick’s § 1983 claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. The court held that the department is an arm of New York State and is therefore protected by the Eleventh Amendment from this type of federal lawsuit. The court also stated that New York had not waived that protection and that Congress had not removed it through § 1983.

Claims Against New York City

The court dismissed Lorick’s claims against the City of New York for failure to state a claim. A municipality is not liable under § 1983 merely because one of its employees or agents allegedly committed misconduct. The complaint must allege that the municipality itself had a policy, custom, or practice that caused the constitutional violation.

The court found that the complaint attributed the alleged conduct to New York State parole officers, who were employed by the state department rather than by the City. It also found that the complaint did not allege a City policy, practice, or custom that caused the alleged constitutional violations. The court gave Lorick 30 days to replead the claims against the City.

Service on the Individual Officers

The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the required service paperwork for Parole Officers Kowlessar, Chico, Valerio, Gonzalez, Nelson, and Sterling. Because Lorick was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, the United States Marshals Service was directed to serve those defendants. The opinion states that service should be made at the Manhattan office of the state department because Lorick had not provided service addresses.

The court stated that if the complaint was not served within 90 days after summonses were issued, Lorick should request an extension of time. It also directed Lorick to notify the court in writing if his address changed and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision under Eleventh Amendment immunity. It dismissed the claims against the City of New York for failure to state a claim, with 30 days’ leave to replead. It directed service on the six individual parole officers. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.