Cossette v. Downstate Correctional Facility

Background

Marcus Cossette, proceeding without a lawyer and currently incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He alleged that defendants violated his rights while he was incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, although the court noted that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee under the applicable statute.

Screening standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the court to screen a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a government entity or government employee. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims dismissed

The court dismissed Cossette’s claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) and Acting DOCCS Commissioner Anthony Annucci. It held that DOCCS and Annucci were effectively arms of New York State and therefore protected by the Eleventh Amendment, which generally bars suits against states and their instrumentalities in federal court. The court also noted that Cossette did not allege Annucci’s personal involvement.

The court separately dismissed all claims under § 1983 against Hardy and Watkins. Because Hardy and Watkins were prisoners who did not work for a state or other government body, the court treated them as private parties and concluded that Cossette had not stated a claim against them under § 1983.

Service on remaining named defendants

Because Cossette was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, the court ordered the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to handle service of the complaint on Deputy Superintendent Burnett, Dr. Malvarosa, Correction Officer Edwards, and Sergeant Pavez. The court extended the service period to 90 days after summonses are issued. It stated that Cossette should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.

The court also held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. Under that rule, the four named defendants must serve responses to the specified standard discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.

Identifying unnamed defendants

The court found that Cossette had provided enough information for the New York State Attorney General to identify John Does #1 through #3. The court ordered the Attorney General to provide the identity, badge number, and service address of each unnamed defendant to Cossette and the court within 60 days of the order.

Within 30 days after receiving that information, Cossette must file a second amended complaint naming the newly identified defendants. That complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the existing amended complaint. The court stated that it will screen the new pleading and, if necessary, direct service on the newly identified defendants.

Other directives and disposition

The court treated Cossette’s two amended complaints as the operative pleading and directed that the listed defendants be added to the case caption. It required Cossette to notify the court in writing if his address changes and warned that the action could be dismissed if he fails to do so. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

Judge Cathy Seibel therefore dismissed the claims against DOCCS and Annucci, dismissed all § 1983 claims against Hardy and Watkins, and ordered service and further identification procedures for the remaining defendants.