Barry v. New York State Department of Correction and Community Supervision

Background

Oumar Barry, who is incarcerated at Shawangunk Correctional Facility, brought the action without a lawyer. He seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against people acting under state authority. He named the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), its commissioner, several Sing Sing Correctional Facility officials, a nurse, and two unidentified deputy superintendents.

The court had previously allowed Barry to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. The Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen his complaint and dismiss claims that were legally insufficient, frivolous, malicious, sought money from an immune defendant, or were otherwise barred by the court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Ruling on DOCCS

The court dismissed all of Barry’s § 1983 claims against DOCCS. It concluded that DOCCS is an agency of New York and therefore an arm of the state. The Eleventh Amendment protects states and state arms from certain federal lawsuits. The court stated that New York had not waived this immunity and that Congress had not removed it for § 1983 claims.

The court therefore dismissed the claims against DOCCS under the Eleventh Amendment-immunity doctrine, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and because Barry sought monetary relief from a defendant immune from that relief. The opinion does not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Remaining defendants and service

The court directed service on the remaining individual defendants: Daniel F. Martuscello III, Michael Capra, Babu Thumpayil, Sergeant F. Bailey, the Sing Sing Deputy Superintendent of Administration, A. Sewell, and the Sing Sing Deputy Superintendent of Programs. Because Barry was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, prepare service forms, and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service.

The court extended the service period so that the 90-day period would run from the date the summonses were issued. If service was not completed within 90 days after issuance, Barry was told to request an extension. The court also instructed Barry to notify the court in writing if his address changed.

Discovery and appeal

The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified interrogatories and document requests. The remaining individual defendants must serve responses within 120 days after service and must quote each request verbatim.

Finally, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Barry permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.