Foster v. John or Jane Doe, M.D.

Background

Hasheem D. Foster brought this pro se action under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction, alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The opinion states that Foster was incarcerated at Bare Hill Correctional and that he had been confined at Downstate Correctional Facility. He named “John or Jane Doe, M.D.” and the Superintendent of Downstate Correctional Facility as defendants.

Foster identified possible claims involving cruel and unusual punishment, invasion of privacy, disclosure of medical information, and deliberate indifference to medical care. His statement of claim, however, only said that he had been transferred to Downstate Correctional Facility at various times from 2010 through 2020. He requested $100,000 in damages.

Screening standard

The court explained that federal law requires screening of a prisoner’s complaint when the prisoner seeks relief from a governmental entity or its officer or employee. The court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that pro se filings are read generously, but they still must provide a short and plain statement of facts showing a plausible entitlement to relief.

Court’s analysis

The court construed Foster’s allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and conduct by a person acting under state authority. The court found that Foster’s complaint did not satisfy the federal pleading rules because it did not provide facts showing what occurred or how any defendant violated his rights.

Disposition

Because the court concluded that Foster might be able to state viable claims by providing additional facts, Judge Louis L. Stanton granted him leave to file an amended complaint. Foster had to submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 20-CV-9924. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. The court directed Foster to identify relevant people and titles, describe each relevant event and each defendant’s conduct or inaction, state the approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and identify the relief sought. The court stated that if Foster did not comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time.