McDaniel v. Department of Correction
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-08735
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In McDaniel v. Department of Correction, Judge Nathan dismissed claims against the agency, ordered identification of a Doe officer, and set discovery requirements.
Curtis McDaniel’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction were dismissed. The City, named correction officers, the unidentified officer, and the New York City Law Department were affected by the identification, service, and discovery directives.
What happened
Curtis McDaniel, representing himself, sued the New York City Department of Correction, the City of New York, and correction officers under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that the defendants failed to protect him from an assault by another inmate.
The court dismissed McDaniel’s claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency cannot be sued as a separate entity. The court ordered the New York City Law Department to identify the John Doe correction officer and provide an address for service, requested that certain defendants waive service, and required responses to standard prisoner-case discovery requests.
Judge Alison J. Nathan issued the order. The court also denied McDaniel permission to proceed without prepaying fees for any appeal, stating that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- McDaniel v. Department of Correction · No. 1:19-cv-08735
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 22, 2019
Background
Curtis McDaniel brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from an assault by another inmate. He named the New York City Department of Correction, the City of New York, Correction Officer Gordon, Captain Correction Officer Manzo, and a John Doe correction officer identified by shield number 5890. The court had previously granted McDaniel permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
Department of Correction
The court dismissed McDaniel’s claims against the Department of Correction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It held that the Department is an agency of the City of New York and is not an entity that can be sued separately under New York City law.
Identifying the John Doe Defendant
The court stated that a self-represented litigant is entitled to the court’s assistance in identifying an unknown defendant. Because McDaniel provided enough information to allow identification of the John Doe correction officer, the court ordered the New York City Law Department to determine the officer’s identity and service address within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, McDaniel must file an amended complaint naming the officer. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it would screen the amended complaint after it is filed.
Service and Discovery
The Clerk of Court was directed to notify the Department of Correction and the Law Department about the order. The court requested that the City of New York, Correction Officer Gordon, and Captain Correction Officer Manzo waive service of the summons. The court also ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified court-ordered interrogatories and document requests within 120 days. The defendants must quote each discovery request verbatim in their responses.
Appeal-Filing Status
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied McDaniel permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition
The court dismissed McDaniel’s claims against the Department of Correction. It also ordered steps to identify the John Doe defendant, requested waiver of service from specified defendants, applied Local Civil Rule 33.2, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.