Massey v. City of New York

Background

Tyrone Massey, who was representing himself, brought an action seeking damages against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction (DOC), and an unidentified “John Doe” correction officer. The opinion states that Massey was being held at the Manhattan Detention Complex. The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging violations of federal constitutional rights.

The court had previously granted Massey permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. It explained that it was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally valid claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. It also stated that pleadings filed by people without lawyers must be read liberally.

Department of Correction

The court dismissed Massey’s claims against the DOC for failure to state a claim. Under New York City law, a City agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued. The court therefore dismissed the DOC claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

City of New York

The court did not dismiss the City of New York. It requested that the City waive service of summons. It also held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this prisoner case and directed the City to respond within 120 days to the court’s standard interrogatories and document requests, quoting each request verbatim in its response.

Unidentified Correction Officer

The court found that the complaint provided enough information to permit the DOC to identify the unnamed defendant. According to the opinion, the “John Doe” defendant was the correction officer assigned to the housing unit where Massey was held at the Anna M. Kross Center on August 22, 2020, and who released, after 9:00 p.m., the prisoner who later assaulted Massey that day.

The court ordered the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York to determine the officer’s identity, badge number, and service address and provide that information to Massey and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving the information, Massey must file an amended complaint naming the officer. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint and may then issue further service and discovery orders.

Disposition

The court dismissed Massey’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction. It directed notification of the DOC and the New York City Law Department, requested that the City waive service, and directed the City to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2 within 120 days. It also directed the Clerk of Court to send the order and complaint to the City’s Corporation Counsel. Finally, Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.