Thomas v. N.Y. Department of Corrections Community Supervision

Background

Steven B. Thomas, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against government officials for certain constitutional violations. He sued the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) and correctional officers identified in the opinion as C.O. S. Mastic, C.O. H. Hopkins, C.O. B. Norfleet, C.O. Nieves, and Sgt. N. Drewes. The court had previously allowed Thomas to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

Screening Standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen the complaint because Thomas was incarcerated and sought relief from government defendants. The court explained that it had to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it would read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally, while still requiring the complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief.

Claims Against DOCCS

The court dismissed Thomas’s § 1983 claims against DOCCS based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. That doctrine generally prevents states from being sued in federal court unless they have waived immunity or Congress has removed it. The court held that DOCCS is a state agency and an arm of New York State, that Congress had not removed New York’s immunity for § 1983 claims, and that New York had not waived its immunity in federal court. The court stated that this immunity covered claims seeking money damages, injunctions, and retrospective declarations.

Identifying the Individual Officers

The court issued an order requiring assistance in identifying the individual correctional officers. It directed the New York State Attorney General’s Office, as the attorney and agent for DOCCS, to determine each officer’s identity, badge number, and address for service. The Attorney General’s Office had 60 days from the order’s date to provide the information to the court. Within 30 days after receiving the information, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk of Court to prepare the service forms and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service.

Thomas was required to notify the court in writing if his address changed, and the court stated that it could dismiss the action if he failed to do so.

Disposition

The court dismissed Thomas’s claims against DOCCS. It directed the Clerk of Court to send the order and complaint to the New York Attorney General’s Office and to send Thomas the order and an information package. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Thomas permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.