Foster v. New York Department of Correction

Background

Samuel B. Foster Jr., who was incarcerated at Mid-State Correctional Facility, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that his constitutional rights were violated in 2023, when he was detained on Rikers Island. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee up front. The opinion notes that prisoners remain responsible for paying the full filing fee even when granted that permission.

Screening standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen complaints filed by incarcerated people seeking relief from a government entity or government employee. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from a defendant protected from such relief, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims against the Department of Correction

The court dismissed Foster’s claims against the New York Department of Correction, referred to in the opinion as DOC. It held that DOC, as an agency of the City of New York, is not an entity that can be sued under the applicable city law. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims against DOC for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The opinion does not add a prejudice designation to that dismissal.

Because Foster was proceeding without a lawyer and appeared to intend to sue the City of New York, the court treated the complaint as asserting claims against the City. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, it directed the Clerk to amend the case caption to replace DOC with the City of New York. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City may assert.

Service and possible amended complaint

The court directed the Clerk to notify DOC and the New York City Law Department of the order and requested that the City waive service of the summons. The Clerk was also directed to mail Foster an information package and an amended-complaint form.

The order states that Foster may file an amended complaint to add individually involved defendants if he discovers their names, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). If he does not know a defendant’s name, he may use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” along with a description of the person and the person’s alleged involvement. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so facts and claims Foster wishes to retain must be repeated. The order also states that using a placeholder name does not stop the three-year filing deadline from running and that Foster is responsible for identifying and naming such defendants before that deadline expires.

Disposition

The court dismissed Foster’s § 1983 claims against the New York City Department of Correction for failure to state a claim, directed the Clerk to add the City of New York as a defendant, and directed electronic notice to DOC and the New York City Law Department. It also requested that the City waive service of summons.