Trail v. New York City Dept. of Corrections
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-03793
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Trail v. New York City Dept. of Corrections, Judge Schofield dismissed claims against the Department, added New York City, and denied permission to proceed without fees on appeal.
Lee Trail’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction were dismissed because the Department could not be sued separately. New York City was added as the defendant, subject to any defenses it may assert. The case proceeds with Trail as the sole plaintiff, not on behalf of the 27 listed inmates.
What happened
In Trail v. New York City Dept. of Corrections, Lee Trail sued under a federal civil-rights law without a lawyer. He alleged that housing and testing policies at Rikers Island for handling COVID-19 illness showed deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm. Although he listed 27 other inmates, the court said Trail was the only plaintiff and could not sue on their behalf.
The court dismissed Trail’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction because the Department, as a city agency, could not be sued as a separate entity. Because Trail clearly intended to sue New York City, the court ordered the case caption changed to add the City as the defendant. The amendment was expressly left open to any defenses the City might assert.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield also directed electronic notice to the Department and the City’s Law Department, requested that New York City waive formal service, and denied permission to proceed without paying fees on an appeal. The court ordered copies of the order and information materials sent to Trail.
The detailed version
- Trail v. New York City Dept. of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-03793
- Lorna Schofield
- May 18, 2020
Background
Lee Trail, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He alleged that housing and testing policies at Rikers Island for handling COVID-19 illness showed deliberate indifference to a risk of serious harm.
Trail included a list of 27 inmate names labeled “Corona-19 Class Action List.” The court explained that a person proceeding without a lawyer must litigate only his own personal interests and cannot bring claims on behalf of other people. Because Trail was the only listed plaintiff and the only person who submitted an application to proceed without paying filing fees, the court clarified that the case would proceed with Lee Trail as the sole plaintiff.
Screening standard
The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s required screening of prisoner complaints against governmental entities or their employees. At screening, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it must read filings by people without lawyers generously, but those filings still must provide enough factual detail to make the claim plausible.
Claims against the Department of Correction
The court dismissed Trail’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction. It held that the Department, as an agency of the City of New York, was not an entity that could be sued separately. The court stated that claims against the Department had to be brought against the City of New York.
Because Trail was proceeding without a lawyer and clearly intended to assert claims against the City, the court construed the complaint as asserting claims against New York City. It directed the Clerk of Court to amend the caption by replacing the Department of Correction with the City of New York. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City might assert; it did not state that the dismissal of the Department was with or without prejudice.
Other directions and disposition
The Clerk was directed to notify the Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department electronically. The court requested that New York City waive service of summons. The Clerk was also directed to mail Trail the order and an information package at the addresses identified in the order.
The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Trail permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The order dismisses the claims against the Department of Correction and adds the City of New York as a defendant.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.