Gonzalez v. New York City Department of Corrections
- Rochon
- 1:24-cv-03859
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Gonzalez v. New York City Department of Corrections, Judge Rochon dismissed some claims, substituted the City, and ordered service steps for other defendants.
Ricky Gonzalez’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction were dismissed, and the City of New York was substituted as a defendant. Claims against Nurse Jane Doe and Correction Officer Jane Diaz were dismissed, with leave or permission to replead as stated in the order. The City and the named correctional officials receiving service requests must respond to the specified discovery within 120 days after service.
What happened
In Gonzalez v. New York City Department of Corrections, Ricky Gonzalez, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law over alleged constitutional violations. The court also understood the complaint as possibly raising state-law claims.
The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Correction because the agency cannot be sued in its own name, but directed the clerk to replace it with the City of New York. The court also dismissed the claims against Nurse Jane Doe and Correction Officer Jane Diaz, allowing Gonzalez to replead those claims. Other defendants were not dismissed in this order.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered steps to serve the City and the remaining correctional officials, and required defendants to answer specified discovery requests within 120 days after service. The court dismissed the claims against Nurse Jane Doe for failure to state a claim and dismissed the claims against Diaz without prejudice to repleading.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. New York City Department of Corrections · No. 1:24-cv-03859
- Rochon
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
Ricky Gonzalez, who is incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility and proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims against state or local officials for violations of constitutional rights. The complaint may also be read to assert state-law claims. The court had previously allowed Gonzalez to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, and a prior order had dismissed some parties and claims.
New York City Department of Correction
The court held that the New York City Department of Correction cannot be sued in its own name under the New York City Charter. It therefore dismissed Gonzalez’s claims against the Department of Correction. Because Gonzalez clearly intended to assert claims against New York City, the court directed the clerk to amend the caption and replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York. The amendment was without prejudice to defenses the City may assert.
Nurse Jane Doe
Gonzalez alleged that Nurse Jane Doe gave him medication partly coated with a white substance. He alleged that, after taking the medication dissolved in water, he experienced a serious head rush, felt cold, had a racing heart, and trembled. He described the incident as an attempt to poison or murder him.
The court analyzed this as a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim by a pretrial detainee. Such a claim requires facts showing both an objectively serious risk to health or safety and that the defendant intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable care despite knowing, or having reason to know, of the excessive risk. The court found that Gonzalez’s allegations did not show an objectively serious risk or plausibly show that Nurse Doe knew, or should have known, that the white coating posed a serious risk. The court dismissed the § 1983 claim against Nurse Doe for failure to state a claim and granted Gonzalez leave to replead it in an amended complaint.
Correction Officer Jane Diaz
Gonzalez named Correction Officer Jane Diaz, identifying her as connected with a grievance, but did not otherwise mention her in the complaint. Because he did not allege what Diaz did or failed to do that violated his rights, the court dismissed the claims against Diaz without prejudice to repleading.
Service and discovery
The court directed the clerk to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department. It requested that the City, Correction Officer “John” June, Correction Officer “John” Randazzo, Correction Officer “Jane” Johnson, Deputy Warden “John” Chester, and Captain “Jane” Pierre waive service of summons.
The court also ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. Under that rule, defendants must serve responses to the standard prisoner-case interrogatories and document requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.