Gordon v. Drummond
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-08405
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gordon v. Drummond, Judge Daniels dismissed claims against the Department of Correction, added New York City, and addressed service and discovery.
Jermaine Gordon’s claims against the Department of Correction were dismissed; New York City was added as a defendant, while the case’s service and discovery procedures were addressed for the City and the two correction officers.
What happened
Jermaine Gordon, representing himself, sued Correction Officers Mr. Drummond and Ms. Jackson and the Department of Correction under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that his constitutional rights were violated while he was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island.
The court dismissed Gordon’s claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency generally cannot be sued separately. The court treated the complaint as asserting claims against New York City, directed the clerk to add the City as a defendant, and stated that the amendment did not prevent the City from raising defenses.
Judge George B. Daniels also requested that New York City and the two correction officers waive service of summons and directed the defendants to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days. The court had previously allowed Gordon to proceed without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Gordon v. Drummond · No. 1:19-cv-08405
- George Daniels
- Nov. 15, 2019
Background
Jermaine Gordon, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for certain constitutional violations by state or local officials. He named Correction Officer Mr. Drummond, Correction Officer Ms. Jackson, and the Department of Corrections as defendants. He alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights while he was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island.
The court had previously granted Gordon permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. This order addressed the appropriate defendant, service of process, and discovery procedures for the case.
Department of Correction
The court held that Gordon’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction had to be dismissed because a City agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued. The court relied on New York City Charter chapter 17, section 396, and cited federal decisions applying that rule.
Because Gordon was representing himself and appeared to intend to sue New York City, the court construed the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the court directed the clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York in the case caption. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City might assert.
Service and discovery
The court directed the clerk to notify the Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order. It requested that the City of New York, Correction Officer Mr. Drummond, and Correction Officer Ms. Jackson waive service of summons.
The court also held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applied. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified, court-ordered discovery requests. The defendants were required to serve responses to the standard interrogatories and document requests within 120 days of the order and to quote each request verbatim in their responses.
Disposition
The court dismissed Gordon’s claims against the Department of Correction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), directed the clerk to add the City of New York as a defendant, requested waivers of service from the City and the two correction officers, and held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applied to the action. Judge George B. Daniels signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.