Sidberry v. New York City
Usamah Sidberry v. New York City; New York City Department of Correction; Commissioner Lynell Maginley; John Doe Warden of West Facility; John Doe Warden of OBCC; Capt. Montague; C.O. Ferraro; C.O. Rivera; C.O. Cutler; C.O. Bailey; Jane Doe West Facility Clinical Physician; Capt. Williams; Capt. Morales; C.O. Hyde; C.O. High; All Other Unidentified Correctional Staff
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-06948
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Sidberry v. New York City, Judge Engelmayer screened the prisoner’s case, dismissing some claims and denying counsel while arranging service for others.
Usamah Sidberry; the New York City Department of Correction; the unidentified correctional staff defendants; the Jane Doe clinical physician; the defendants for whom the court requested service waivers; and Sidberry’s request for appointed volunteer counsel.
What happened
Usamah Sidberry, who is incarcerated at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center, sued New York City, the Department of Correction, and correctional and medical staff. He alleged deliberate indifference to his confinement conditions, excessive force, and related state-law claims under a federal civil-rights statute.
The court dismissed Sidberry’s claims against the Department of Correction because the agency cannot be sued in its own name. It also dismissed without prejudice his claims against “All Other Unidentified Correctional Staff” because he alleged no facts about them and they could not be identified. The court requested that several defendants waive service and ordered the City Law Department to identify the Jane Doe physician; Sidberry may then file an amended complaint naming her. The court denied his request for a lawyer without prejudice to renewal later.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued the order on September 26, 2025. The case continues as to the matters for which the court directed service or identification, but the order does not decide whether Sidberry’s underlying allegations are legally or factually correct.
The detailed version
- Sidberry v. New York City · No. 1:25-cv-06948
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 26, 2025
Background
Usamah Sidberry, who is incarcerated at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island, filed the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges deliberate indifference to the conditions of his confinement and excessive force. The court also understood the complaint to raise state-law claims. In an earlier order, the court granted Sidberry permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Screening Standard
Because Sidberry is incarcerated and seeks relief from governmental entities or employees, the Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen his complaint. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
Department of Correction
The court held that the New York City Department of Correction does not have the legal capacity to sue or be sued in its own name under New York law. It therefore dismissed Sidberry’s claims against the Department of Correction. The order did not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Service and Identification of Defendants
The court requested that the following defendants waive service of the summons: New York City; DOC Commissioner Lynell Maginley-Liddie; the OBCC and West Facility wardens; Captains Montague, Williams, and Morales; and Correction Officers Ferraro, Rivera, Cutler, Bailey, Hyde, and High.
The complaint provided enough information for the Department of Correction to identify the Jane Doe clinical physician who was on duty at West Facility on January 7, 2025. The court ordered the New York City Law Department to provide the physician’s identity and a service address to Sidberry and the court within 60 days. Sidberry must then file an amended complaint naming that defendant within 30 days after receiving the information. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and the court will screen it after filing.
The court dismissed without prejudice Sidberry’s claims against “All Other Unidentified Correctional Staff.” It found that the complaint did not allege facts about those defendants and that they could not be identified.
Discovery and Request for Counsel
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint.
Sidberry also asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer. The court denied that motion without prejudice to renewal later because the case was at too early a stage for the court to assess its merits.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction, dismissed without prejudice the claims against “All Other Unidentified Correctional Staff,” and denied Sidberry’s motion for counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The court also directed steps for service on specified defendants and identification of the Jane Doe physician. The order did not resolve the merits of Sidberry’s deliberate-indifference, excessive-force, or state-law allegations.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.