Ulloa v. Heidiman

Background

Pablo Ulloa filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against persons who violate constitutional rights while acting under state law. Ulloa alleged that C.O. Heidiman, Badge # 1306, violated his constitutional rights. The defendants named in the complaint were C.O. Heidiman, the New York City Department of Correction, the City of New York, and the State of New York.

The court had previously granted Ulloa permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Because Ulloa was a prisoner seeking relief from government defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and the federal statutes governing such screening.

Claims Against the Department of Correction

The court dismissed Ulloa’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction. It held that a New York City agency generally is not an entity that can be sued.

Claims Against the City of New York

The court dismissed Ulloa’s claims against the City of New York. A municipality cannot be held liable under Section 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly acted wrongfully. Ulloa had to allege facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice existed and caused the constitutional violation. The court found that he had not done so.

Claims Against the State of New York

The court dismissed Ulloa’s Section 1983 claims against the State of New York. It relied on the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states from lawsuits in federal court unless the state waives that protection or Congress removes it. The court stated that New York had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it through Section 1983.

Claims Against C.O. Heidiman and Case Procedures

The order did not dismiss the claims against C.O. Heidiman. The court requested that Heidiman waive service of the summons and directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order.

The court also ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint, quoting each request verbatim in the responses.

Disposition

The court dismissed Ulloa’s claims against the Department of Correction, the City of New York, and the State of New York. It did not state that these dismissals were with or without prejudice. The court denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal after certifying that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed the Clerk to mail Ulloa a copy of the order and an information package.