Colon v. Department of Corrections
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-10130
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Colon v. Department of Corrections, Judge Cronan dismissed DOC but ordered service on other defendants in a COVID-19 jail-safety suit.
Parris Colon’s claims against the Department of Corrections were dismissed. The order directed service steps for Patricia Yang and Margaret Egan and requested that Cynthia Brann waive service; it did not dismiss the action as to those three defendants.
What happened
In Colon v. Department of Corrections, Parris Colon, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center and represented himself, alleged under a federal civil-rights law that jail officials were failing to protect him from COVID-19.
The court dismissed the Department of Corrections from the case for failing to state a claim because a New York City agency cannot be sued as a separate entity. The court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Patricia Yang and Margaret Egan and requested that Cynthia Brann waive service.
Judge John P. Cronan issued the order on March 15, 2021. The order did not dismiss the action as to Yang, Egan, or Brann.
The detailed version
- Colon v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-10130
- John Cronan
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
Parris Colon, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, brought a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows claims against state or local officials for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that jail officials were failing to protect him from contracting COVID-19. Colon had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.
Colon originally filed the complaint with 49 other detainees. A magistrate judge separated the claims into individual cases, leaving Colon as the only plaintiff in this action.
Screening standard
Because Colon was proceeding without prepaying fees and sued government defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Screening requires the court to dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that it must read filings by people without lawyers generously, while still requiring enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible under the federal pleading rules.
Rulings
The court dismissed the claims against the “Department of Corrections” for failure to state a claim. It held that an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued separately under the New York City Charter.
As to Patricia Yang and Margaret Egan, the court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the forms and paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve them. Because Colon was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses were issued. The court stated that Colon should request more time if service was not completed within that period.
As to Cynthia Brann, the court directed the Clerk to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order and requested that Brann waive service of the summons. The opinion does not state that the court dismissed the claims against Yang, Egan, or Brann.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the Department of Corrections dismissed from the action for failure to state a claim. The order also directed steps for service on Yang and Egan and requested waiver of service from Brann.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.