Gioliver v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility

Background

Tineo Gioliver, who was detained at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center (OBCC), brought a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims against state or local officials for constitutional violations. He was allowed to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The original complaint had been filed by Gioliver and 62 other OBCC detainees. The court previously ordered the claims of each individual plaintiff to be separated into individual cases.

The complaint contained handwritten allegations from different individuals and described alleged denial of medical care, conditions at OBCC, and retaliation for complaints about those conditions. The court found that the allegations were written from the perspective of the group and did not state Gioliver’s own experiences or explain how a particular defendant violated his rights. The complaint named New York City, OBCC, Mayor Eric Adams, and Commissioner Lynelle Maginley-Liddie. Correctional officers were mentioned but were not named as defendants.

Screening of the Claims

Because Gioliver was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That provision requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings are read liberally, but they still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Otis Bantum Correctional Center

The court dismissed OBCC as a defendant for failure to state a claim. It held that OBCC is a jail operated by the New York City Department of Correction, and that the department is a city agency that cannot generally be sued under the New York City Charter. The court stated that any claims Gioliver intended to bring against OBCC may instead be asserted against the City of New York.

Mayor Adams and Commissioner Maginley-Liddie

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

The court separately dismissed the personal-capacity claims against Adams and Maginley-Liddie. A § 1983 claim requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation; a person cannot be held liable merely because that person supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. The court found that Gioliver alleged no facts showing Adams’s or Maginley-Liddie’s personal involvement.

Gioliver’s Allegations and Leave to Amend

The court held that the complaint did not provide facts specific to Gioliver or identify the correctional officers who allegedly violated his rights. It directed that any amended complaint name the involved individuals in the caption and explain what each person did or failed to do. If Gioliver did not know an officer’s name, he could use a John Doe or Jane Doe designation, but the court warned that doing so would not extend the applicable three-year limitations period.

The amended complaint must include the relevant people’s names and titles, the events and approximate times and locations, Gioliver’s injuries, and the relief sought. It must replace the original complaint completely, so any facts or claims he wants to preserve must be repeated in the amended pleading.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Gioliver 60 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. The order required him to submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 24-CV-9627 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. If he failed to comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The court dismissed Gioliver’s claims against OBCC, Adams, and Maginley-Liddie. The official-capacity claims against Adams and Maginley-Liddie could be asserted against New York City, while their personal-capacity claims were dismissed for lack of allegations showing personal involvement. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.