Massey v. New York City Department of Corrections

Background

Tyrone H. Massey, who was representing himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights while he was detained at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Screening standard

Because Massey was a prisoner proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally valid claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court's subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims against the Department of Corrections

The court dismissed Massey's claims against the New York City Department of Corrections. It relied on New York City law and prior decisions stating that a City agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued. The opinion did not dismiss the claims against the other named defendants on that ground.

Service and identification of unnamed defendants

The court requested that the City of New York, Correction Officer Palmenteri, and Dr. Ho waive service of summons, meaning accept delivery of the lawsuit without requiring formal personal service. The Clerk was directed to notify the Department of Corrections and the New York City Law Department of the order.

The court also issued an order requiring assistance in identifying two unnamed defendants. Massey's complaint provided enough information for the City Law Department to identify the GRVC captain who was the area supervisor and the GRVC correction officer who was the “watch sheet” officer. The Law Department must determine each person's identity, badge number, and service address and provide that information to Massey and the court within 60 days of the order.

Within 30 days after receiving that information, Massey must file an amended complaint naming the two defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint and may later ask defendants to waive service.

Disposition

The court dismissed Massey's claims against the Department of Corrections under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It separately directed the Clerk to send the order and an information package to Massey and to notify the City Law Department. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Massey permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.

The supplied case metadata lists a filing date of August 13, 2020, while the order itself is dated August 15, 2020; the date in the header follows the order's stated date.