El Dey v. Brann

Background

Abdullah Spencer El Dey, who was being held at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island, brought claims alleging violations of federal law. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he was a prisoner seeking relief against government officials, the court was required to screen his complaint for claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, barred by immunity, or outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Claims Against Anthony Annucci

The court treated El Dey’s claims against Anthony Annucci as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows a person to sue state officials for certain constitutional violations. The court explained that a § 1983 defendant must have been personally involved in the alleged violation; a supervisor cannot be held liable merely because someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights worked under that supervisor.

The court found that El Dey alleged no facts showing Annucci’s personal involvement. It also noted that Annucci was the Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, while El Dey was in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction and the alleged events occurred at a Department of Correction facility. The court therefore dismissed El Dey’s claims against Annucci for failure to state a claim.

Adding Defendants

Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may add or remove a party when appropriate. The court directed the Clerk to add Correction Officers Felder, Hazel, and Fung; Deputies Tynda and McBean; Chief Jenkins; Warden Collins; and Captains Battle, Rawlingson, Terry, and Turner as defendants. The court said El Dey alleged that these individuals were involved in failing to protect him from assault by other inmates. The addition was without prejudice to any defenses those defendants might later assert.

Service and Discovery

The court requested that Commissioner Brann and the newly added defendants waive service of summons. It also directed electronic notice to the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department.

Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to the action. Under that rule, defendants must serve responses to specified discovery requests within 120 days of the order, quoting each request verbatim.

Disposition

The court dismissed El Dey’s claims against Anthony Annucci. It directed the Clerk to amend the case caption to add the listed correction officials as defendants and directed the service and discovery procedures described above. 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 from this order.