Brown v. City of New York
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-04632
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Brown v. City of New York, Judge Gardephe dismissed claims against the Department of Correction, added the City, and denied counsel without prejudice.
Paul Brown’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction were dismissed, while the City of New York was added as the defendant. Brown’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Brown v. City of New York, Paul Brown, representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law over an alleged failure to protect him from COVID-19 while detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island.
The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Correction because a city agency cannot be sued separately. It directed the clerk to add the City of New York as the defendant and requested that the City waive formal service of the lawsuit. The court also stated that claims against Rikers Island would have to be dismissed because a jail is not a legally suable person under that civil-rights law.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied Brown’s request for a court-appointed volunteer lawyer without prejudice, meaning Brown may renew the request later. The order did not decide whether the COVID-19 allegations were legally or factually correct.
The detailed version
- Brown v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-04632
- Paul Gardephe
- June 17, 2021
Background
Paul Brown, who was incarcerated at Ulster Correctional Facility when the order was issued, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the New York City Department of Correction was deliberately indifferent to his risk of contracting COVID-19 while he was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.
Claims Against the Department of Correction
The court held that the New York City Department of Correction, as a city agency, is not an entity that can be sued separately under New York City law. The court therefore dismissed Brown’s claims against the Department of Correction under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Because Brown’s complaint clearly intended to assert claims against New York City, the court treated the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York. It directed the clerk to amend the case caption and add the City as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The amendment was stated to be without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert. The court also stated that any claims against Rikers Island would have to be dismissed because a jail facility is not a legally recognized “person” for purposes of § 1983.
Service and Request for Counsel
The court directed the clerk to notify the Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order. It requested that the City of New York waive formal service of the summons.
Brown also asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer. The court explained that requests for appointed counsel consider factors including the apparent strength of the claims, the plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the plaintiff’s ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. Because the case was at an early stage and the court could not yet assess its merits, it denied the request for counsel without prejudice to renewal later.
Disposition
The court dismissed Brown’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction, directed that the City of New York be added as a defendant, requested waiver of service, and denied Brown’s application for appointed counsel without prejudice to renewal. The order did not resolve the underlying COVID-19 civil-rights allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.