Smith v. Department of Corrections

Background

Rashidi G. Smith, proceeding without a lawyer, filed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events he said occurred at correctional facilities on Rikers Island. He alleged that he was retaliated against for helping Andre Antrobus, that employees and inmates assaulted or otherwise retaliated against people, that his mail was withheld or returned months later, and that he was denied access to courts. Smith sought damages from the New York City Department of Correction, New York City, the City Council, unknown employees, the George R. Vierno Center, and the Otis Bantum Correctional Center.

The opinion notes that Antrobus is not a party to this action. It also states that Smith asserted violations of both his own rights and Antrobus’s rights.

Prisoner Screening Standard

Because Smith was a prisoner proceeding without prepayment of filing fees and sued governmental entities and employees, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims on Behalf of Andre Antrobus

The court held that a person representing himself cannot bring claims on behalf of another detainee. It therefore dismissed any claims Smith was attempting to bring for Antrobus.

Department of Correction and Facilities

The court held that the New York City Department of Correction, GRVC, and OBCC lacked the legal capacity to be sued in their own names under New York law. The court dismissed the claims against those defendants. It explained that any claims involving those entities should instead be brought against New York City if Smith files an amended complaint.

Unknown Employees, New York City, and City Council

The court held that Smith’s allegations were not specific enough to give the defendants fair notice of the claims. As to the unknown employees, Smith did not identify what any particular employee personally did or failed to do, when the conduct occurred, what type of mail was involved, or whether the alleged mail interference affected a legal claim.

As to New York City, the court held that Smith did not allege that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his constitutional rights. A municipality cannot be held liable under Section 1983 merely because one of its employees or agents allegedly acted wrongfully.

The court also dismissed the claims against the City Council. Smith alleged that he notified the Council about mail problems and that the Council did nothing, but he did not challenge a Council rule or regulation or allege facts showing that a Council policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his rights.

State-Law Claims

After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Smith might be asserting.

Disposition and Leave to Amend

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(1), with 30 days’ leave to replead. The court stated that Smith might be able to allege additional facts supporting a claim against New York City or individual defendants who were personally involved in violating his rights. If Smith does not file an amended complaint within the allowed time, the court will direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court ordered the matter held open on the docket until a civil judgment is entered.