Brown v. New York City Department of Corrections
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-03979
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Brown v. New York City Department of Corrections, Judge Failla dismissed claims against two defendants and ordered service for the remaining defendants.
Anthony Brown’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction and the New York State Division of Parole were dismissed. The claims against the City of New York and Warden Kisa Smalls were not dismissed in this order, and the court requested service waivers from them.
What happened
Anthony Brown, representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The defendants included the New York City Department of Correction, Warden Kisa Smalls, the City of New York, and the New York State Division of Parole.
The court screened the complaint as required for a prisoner seeking to proceed without paying fees upfront. It ruled that the Department of Correction could not be sued as a city agency and that the claims against the New York State Division of Parole were barred by constitutional immunity protecting states and their agencies from federal lawsuits.
In an order by Judge Katherine Polk Failla, the court dismissed Brown’s claims against the Department of Correction and the Division of Parole. It requested that the City of New York and Warden Kisa Smalls waive formal service of the lawsuit, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Brown v. New York City Department of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-03979
- Katherine Failla
- June 9, 2020
Background
Anthony Brown, who was incarcerated at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by government officials. The defendants named in the case were the New York City Department of Correction, Kisa Smalls in her capacity as warden of the North Infirmary Command, the City of New York, and the New York State Division of Parole. The court had previously allowed Brown to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
Screening standard
The Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen Brown’s complaint because he was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants. The court had to dismiss any part of the complaint that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from a defendant protected from such relief, or fell outside the court’s authority. Although courts interpret self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make a plausible claim for relief.
Rulings
The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Correction because, under New York City law, a city agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued.
The court also dismissed the claims against the New York State Division of Parole. It explained that the Constitution generally gives states and state agencies immunity from lawsuits in federal court unless the state waives that immunity or Congress removes it. The court found that New York had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it for claims under Section 1983.
The order did not dismiss the claims against the City of New York or Warden Kisa Smalls. Instead, the court requested that those defendants waive formal service of the summons and directed the Clerk of Court to notify the relevant city offices. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Brown permission to appeal without paying fees.
Disposition
The court dismissed Brown’s claims against the Department of Correction and the New York State Division of Parole. It requested waiver of service from the City of New York and Warden Kisa Smalls. The order does not state whether the dismissals were with or without prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.