Urgiles v. Department of Corrections of N.Y. State
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-04373
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Urgiles v. Department of Corrections, Judge Halpern dismissed claims against the agency but ordered identification of unnamed officers and medical staff.
Felix Urgiles’s claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision were dismissed. The unnamed correction officers, nurses, and doctor were to be identified through the court-ordered process before Urgiles filed an amended complaint.
What happened
Felix Urgiles, who was incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility, filed Urgiles v. Department of Corrections of N.Y. State under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that correction officers used excessive force and that medical staff failed to provide needed medical care.
The court screened the complaint because Urgiles was incarcerated and had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. It concluded that the claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision were barred by the state’s constitutional immunity from this type of federal lawsuit and that the agency could not be sued under the civil-rights law.
Judge Philip M. Halpern dismissed Urgiles’s claims against the department. The court also ordered the New York Attorney General to identify the unnamed correction officers, nurses, and doctor, after which Urgiles must file an amended complaint; the court will screen that complaint.
The detailed version
- Urgiles v. Department of Corrections of N.Y. State · No. 7:20-cv-04373
- Philip Halpern
- June 24, 2020
Background
Felix Urgiles, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §
- He alleged that correction officers physically assaulted him on May 5, 2020, and that nurses denied him medical attention on March 19, March 24, or March 25,
- He also alleged that a doctor provided inadequate medical care between March 27 and March 31,
- The alleged conduct was said to violate the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
The court had previously granted Urgiles permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, however, the court was required to screen the complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Claims Against the Department
The court dismissed the claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, referred to in the opinion as DOCCS. The court held that New York had not waived its constitutional immunity from suit in federal court and that Congress had not removed that immunity through § 1983. The court also held that DOCCS was not a “person” that could be sued under § 1983. The conclusion was based on the immunity and failure-to-state-a-claim provisions cited in the order.
Identification of Unnamed Defendants
The complaint identified the alleged events and provided enough information for the New York State Attorney General to identify the unnamed defendants. Under a procedure allowing a court to help a self-represented litigant identify an unknown defendant, the court ordered the Attorney General to determine the identities and badge numbers of the John Doe correction officers, the identities of the John Doe nurses, and the identity of the Jane Doe doctor, along with addresses where they could be served. The Attorney General was required to provide that information to Urgiles and the court within 60 days of the order.
Within 30 days after receiving the information, Urgiles was required to file an amended complaint naming those defendants. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it would screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, direct the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to handle service.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered that Urgiles’s claims against DOCCS be dismissed. The order did not decide the merits of the excessive-force and medical-care allegations against the unnamed individual defendants; instead, it established a process for identifying those defendants and required a later amended complaint. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.