Crandell v. Department of Corrections and Community Supervison

Background

Corey Crandell, also identified as Dennis Sharma, filed this action without a lawyer while held at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and state law. He sought damages from the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), the City of New York, “Rikers Island OBCC,” and unknown gang members.

Crandell alleged that gang members assaulted him in his housing unit at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center in September 2019, even though he was not supposed to be housed with them. He alleged that correction officers removed him from the unit but later returned him. He also alleged that the gang members and correction officers denied him food and water, that another prisoner kicked him in the face while he was handcuffed and shackled on a bus, and that correction personnel confiscated his property and did not return it.

Screening standard

Because Crandell was a prisoner proceeding without paying filing fees in advance, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally, such complaints still must provide enough facts to make relief plausible.

Claims against DOCCS

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against DOCCS. It held that DOCCS is an arm of New York State and is protected by the Eleventh Amendment from this type of federal lawsuit. The court also described the claims as frivolous because DOCCS is immune from suit for the relief sought.

Claims against “Rikers Island OBCC”

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against “Rikers Island OBCC” for failure to state a claim. It explained that OBCC is a jail, not a “person” that can be sued under § 1983.

Claims against the City and individuals

The court did not dismiss the claims against the City of New York at this stage. Instead, it granted Crandell leave to amend. To state a § 1983 claim against the City, he needed to allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged violation.

The court also granted leave to amend to assert claims against individual defendants. Crandell had not named any individuals, and the court instructed him to identify the people involved and explain how each was personally involved. If he did not know a person’s name, he could use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe,” but the court warned that doing so would not pause the time limit for filing claims.

Instructions and disposition

The court ordered Crandell to file a complete amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to include the defendants, relevant facts, dates and locations, each defendant’s acts or omissions, the injuries allegedly suffered, and the relief requested. It would replace the original complaint, so any claims Crandell wished to continue had to be included again, except claims the court had dismissed in this order.

Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to send the order and an amended civil-rights complaint form to Crandell. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Crandell failed to amend within the deadline without showing good cause, it would dismiss the action, dismiss the federal claims on the stated screening grounds, and decline to consider the state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.