Nieves v. The New York State Office of Mental Health
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-09502
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
Nieves v. The New York State Office of Mental Health: Judge McMahon allowed amendment before screening and denied fee-free appeal status.
Michael Nieves, whose complaint may be amended within 30 days, and the defendants named in his original complaint, whose participation and potential immunity were not finally decided.
What happened
Michael Nieves sued the New York State Office of Mental Health, several doctors and government entities, alleging civil-rights violations. The complaint had not yet been served, and Nieves later sent letters asking to remove some defendants or change his damages request.
The court gave Nieves 30 days to file an amended complaint clarifying the defendants and claims. If he did not amend, the court would review the original complaint under the prisoner-screening law. The court also warned that some defendants might be protected from suit.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk to mail the order and denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court did not decide whether Nieves’s claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Nieves v. The New York State Office of Mental Health · No. 1:20-cv-09502
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 7, 2021
Background
Michael Nieves brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under state law. The defendants named in the complaint included eight Bellevue Hospital doctors, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, the State of New York, the United States, the New York State Office of Mental Health, and its Commissioner, Ann Mariet. The order states that Nieves was confined in Bellevue Hospital’s prison ward.
After filing the complaint, Nieves sent several letters seeking changes. He asked to remove Dennis Popeo, M.D., and later asked to remove Tarah Scanlon, Catherine Mier, and Ann Marie T. Sullivan, M.D., from his damages claims. He also said he wanted to withdraw the specified damages amounts requested from the other defendants. The court found it unclear whether he wanted to dismiss defendants or only change the amount of damages sought.
Amendment Before Screening
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 permits a plaintiff to amend a complaint once without the court’s permission before a responsive pleading is served, or within 21 days after service. Because Nieves’s complaint had not been served, he did not need the court’s permission to amend it.
Because Nieves’s letters appeared to show that he wanted to amend, the court allowed 30 days before screening the complaint. Screening is the court’s required review of a qualifying prisoner complaint for claims that cannot proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court directed Nieves to clarify which defendants he wished to sue and which claims he brought against them. It supplied an amended-complaint form.
The court explained that an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint rather than supplementing it. Therefore, only the parties and claims included in an amended complaint could be considered. If Nieves did not amend within 30 days, the court would screen the original complaint against the defendants named in it.
Warnings About Immunity
The court cautioned that some defendants named in the original complaint appeared to be immune from suit and, if so, should not be included in an amended complaint. It cited the principle that the United States cannot be sued without its consent and stated that state governments generally cannot be sued in federal court unless they waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity or Congress removes that immunity.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Nieves a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The court allowed 30 days for Nieves to file an amended complaint before screening the case. The court did not rule on the merits of Nieves’s civil-rights claims, did not dismiss the complaint, and did not decide which defendants could ultimately remain in the case.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.