Medina v. New York State Division of Parole

Background

Anthony Medina, who was being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center, filed this action without a lawyer. He proceeded without prepaying filing fees. The opinion says he sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and state law. He sought damages, declarations, and injunctive relief.

The defendants included the State of New York; the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; the former New York State Division of Parole; state employees; the New York City Department of Correction and its employees; the Bellevue Men’s Shelter, which the opinion identifies as a shelter operated by the New York City Department of Homeless Services; and Jason Colter, a private individual.

Screening and dismissals

Because Medina was proceeding without prepaying fees and sought relief against governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. It also stated that filings by people without lawyers must be read liberally.

The court dismissed Medina’s claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and the former New York State Division of Parole. It reasoned that both were arms of New York State and that the claims against them duplicated claims against the State of New York, which was already named as a defendant.

The court dismissed claims in this action that duplicated claims Medina asserted in another pending case, identified in the opinion as Medina v. Smalls, No. 1:20-CV-3985. The court expressly dismissed those duplicative claims without prejudice.

The court dismissed the claims against the Bellevue Men’s Shelter and the New York City Department of Correction because, under the New York City Charter and cited decisions, city agencies such as those entities are not separately suable. Because Medina clearly intended to assert claims against New York City, the court construed the amended complaint as asserting claims against the City, directed that the caption be changed to add the City, and stated that the amendment was without prejudice to defenses the City might assert.

Service and unidentified defendants

The court requested that the City of New York and Anderson, Chaplain, Copeland, Bacon, Akpan, Liriano, and Rivera waive service of the summons. It directed the clerk to issue summonses and prepare service materials for the State of New York and Campbell, Corse-Johnson, Turkle, Schulze, and Colter. The court directed the United States Marshals Service to serve those defendants and extended the service period until 90 days after summonses were issued for them.

The court found that the amended complaint gave enough information for the New York State Attorney General to identify the unnamed “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” defendants. The opinion describes those defendants as three parole-related officials: the Regional Senior Parole Officer at the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Bronx II Field Office, the regional interstate-parole supervisor, and the intrastate parole coordinator. The court ordered the Attorney General to provide their identities and service addresses within 60 days. Medina then had 30 days after receiving that information to file a second amended complaint naming them. The second amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints.

Request for a lawyer and appeal status

The court denied Medina’s motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice to considering it later, explaining that the case was too early for the court to assess its merits. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.

Disposition

This was an order screening and managing the case. It dismissed the specified agency claims, dismissed the duplicative claims without prejudice, added the City of New York, directed service and identification procedures for other defendants, and denied the request for pro bono counsel without prejudice.