Christman v. Department of Corrections

Background

Silviano Christman brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under state law. He was proceeding without a lawyer and had previously been allowed to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The complaint concerned alleged events at the Otis B. Bantam Center on Rikers Island and named Correction Officer Montero, unnamed correction officers, an unnamed doctor, and New York City Health + Hospitals.

Screening and claims against Health + Hospitals

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. It explained that a prisoner’s complaint must be dismissed, in whole or in part, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court construed Christman’s complaint as also asserting § 1983 claims against the City of New York. It explained that alleging wrongdoing by a city or Health + Hospitals employee is not enough to establish municipal liability. Christman had to allege facts showing that a City or Health + Hospitals policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court dismissed the claims against New York City Health + Hospitals with leave to replead. It granted Christman leave to file a second amended complaint naming the City of New York and alleging facts supporting a policy, custom, or practice by the City or Health + Hospitals.

Service and unnamed defendants

The court requested that Correction Officer Montero, identified as Shield # 3105, waive service of summons. It also directed the New York City Law Department to identify the unnamed correction officers and provide their badge numbers and service addresses. Health + Hospitals was directed to identify the unnamed doctor and provide an address where that defendant could be served. The Law Department and Health + Hospitals had 60 days to provide the information. Christman then had 30 days after receiving the information to file an amended complaint naming the unnamed defendants. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and would be screened again.

Discovery and disposition

The court held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified discovery requests. Defendants were ordered to serve responses within 90 days and to quote each request verbatim.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick directed the Clerk to notify the relevant correction and law departments and to send the order and complaint to the New York City Law Department and Health + Hospitals. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. This was a screening and case-management order; the opinion did not decide the underlying constitutional claims on their merits.