Robinson v. Spanno
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-00642
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
Robinson v. Spano: Judge Roman dismissed claims against Spano, ordered service on McWilliams and Baresi, and allowed the case to continue.
Arnold L. Robinson’s claims against Commissioner Joseph Spano were dismissed. The claims involving Sergeant McWilliams and Sergeant Baresi were not dismissed in this order; the court directed service on them and required discovery responses.
What happened
In Arnold L. Robinson v. Commissioner Joseph Spano, Sergeant McWilliams, and Sergeant Baresi, Robinson, who was incarcerated and representing himself, claimed under a federal civil-rights law that the defendants failed to protect him from other prisoners. Judge Roman reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening rules.
The court dismissed Robinson’s claims against Commissioner Spano because the complaint did not allege that Spano was personally involved. The court directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve Sergeant McWilliams and Sergeant Baresi, so the claims against those defendants could proceed at this stage.
Judge Nelson S. Roman also required the defendants to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days and denied permission to appeal without paying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Robinson v. Spanno · No. 7:20-cv-00642
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 31, 2020
Background
Arnold L. Robinson, who was incarcerated at the Westchester County Jail and represented himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Commissioner Joseph Spano, Sergeant McWilliams, and Sergeant Baresi failed to protect him from other prisoners. The court had already allowed Robinson to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, a status commonly called proceeding without prepayment of fees.
Screening Standard
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court was required to screen a prisoner’s complaint against governmental entities or employees. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints generously, the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.
Claims Against Commissioner Spano
The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires facts showing a defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. A supervisor cannot be held liable solely because a subordinate allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. The complaint named Commissioner Spano in the caption but contained no substantive allegations showing that Spano was personally involved in the events underlying Robinson’s claims.
The court therefore dismissed Robinson’s claims against Commissioner Spano for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
Service and Further Proceedings
Because Robinson was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the necessary forms for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Sergeant McWilliams and Sergeant Baresi. The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses were issued. It stated that Robinson should request an extension if service was not completed within that period.
The court also directed Robinson to notify the court in writing if his address changed. It ordered the defendants to respond within 120 days to the standard discovery requests required by Local Civil Rule 33.2 for certain prisoner cases. Finally, the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.