Jaime v. Kirkland
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-04365
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Jaime v. Kirkland, Judge Nathan dismissed claims against DOC, requested service waivers from individual defendants, and denied counsel without prejudice.
Luis Jaime’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction were dismissed; his claims involving the individual defendants continued through service and discovery procedures, and his request for pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Jaime v. Kirkland, Luis Jaime, who was incarcerated, sued Captain Kirkland and other correction officials under a federal civil-rights law, alleging assault and denial of access to the courts. He represented himself and had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.
The court dismissed Jaime’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction because the agency cannot be sued as a separate entity. The court said Jaime could amend his complaint to name New York City and allege that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged violations. The court requested that the individual defendants waive service and required responses to specified discovery requests within 120 days.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Jaime’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice because the case was too early for the court to assess its merits. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Jaime v. Kirkland · No. 1:20-cv-04365
- Paul Gardephe
- June 25, 2020
Background
Luis Jaime brought this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local government officials. He alleged that the defendants assaulted him and denied him access to the courts. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.
Screening of the Complaint
Because Jaime was incarcerated and proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and related statutes. 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 jurisdiction.
The court dismissed Jaime’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction because, under New York City law, a city agency such as the Department is not a separate entity that can be sued. The court also explained that a claim against New York City would require facts showing both a city policy, custom, or practice and a causal connection between that policy, custom, or practice and the alleged constitutional violation. The complaint did not include those allegations. The court stated that Jaime could file an amended complaint naming New York City and providing facts supporting municipal liability.
Service and Discovery
The court directed the Clerk of Court to notify the Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order. It requested that Captain Kirkland, Captain Morales, Captain or Correction Officer Phillips, and Correction Officer or Chief Jennings waive service of summons. The court also determined that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. Under that rule, the defendants must serve responses to the specified prisoner-case discovery requests within 120 days and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.
Request for Counsel
Jaime asked the court to request pro bono counsel. Applying the factors governing requests for appointed counsel—including the apparent merits, efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the person’s ability to investigate and present the case without assistance—the court denied the application without prejudice to renewal later. The court stated that the proceeding was too early to assess the merits.
Disposition
The court dismissed Jaime’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction. It requested service waivers from the individual defendants, directed the required discovery process, and denied the motion for counsel without prejudice. It 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 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.