Houston v. Capra

Background

Tyrone Houston, also known as Tyrone Black, is incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility and brought this action without a lawyer. He alleges that the defendants violated federally protected rights and seeks damages, declaratory relief, and immediate and permanent injunctive relief. The defendants include New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision officials and officials assigned to Sing Sing and Fishkill Correctional Facilities, including an unidentified Fishkill official.

Houston had been granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. He also requested that the court obtain a volunteer lawyer for him and applied for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. His emergency application concerned the frequency, adequacy, and type of medical treatment; food; access to a prison law library; transfers between Sing Sing and Fishkill; and being required to walk without a permitted cane.

Service and discovery

Because Houston was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve the identified defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses were issued. It also directed the identified defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2 within 120 days after service. That rule requires responses to specified discovery requests in certain prisoner cases.

The court found that the complaint provided enough information for the New York Attorney General to identify the unnamed Fishkill official. The official allegedly instructed Houston on December 23, 2019, to carry draft bags upstairs and from “4/2 housing to C-Center housing” at Fishkill. The Attorney General must provide the official’s identity, service address, and, if appropriate, badge number to Houston and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Houston must file an amended complaint naming the person. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and would later be screened.

Requests for counsel and emergency relief

The court denied Houston’s request for the appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice because the case was at too early a stage for the court to assess its merits. “Without prejudice” means the request was not permanently barred, and Houston may file another application later.

The court also denied Houston’s temporary restraining order and preliminary-injunction application without prejudice. The court explained that this extraordinary relief requires facts showing likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation combined with a balance of hardships favoring the applicant. At that initial stage, the court found Houston’s allegations insufficient to meet that standard.

Disposition

The court directed service on the identified defendants, required their Rule 33.2 responses, ordered the Attorney General to identify the unnamed defendant, denied the request for pro bono counsel without prejudice, and denied the temporary restraining order and preliminary-injunction application without prejudice. It did not resolve the merits of Houston’s underlying civil-rights claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.