Atadzhanov v. The New York City Department of Correction

Background

Mirzo Atadzhanov brought a self-represented lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state or local officials for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights concerning his conditions of confinement by failing to meet a dietary requirement prescribed by a doctor. The opinion states that he was incarcerated at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

Screening standard

Because Atadzhanov was a prisoner proceeding without upfront payment of the filing fee and sued governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally but still must include enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Rulings

The court dismissed Atadzhanov’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), holding that a New York City agency is not an entity that can be sued. The court did not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.

As to the City of New York, the Clerk was directed to notify the Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department electronically, and the court requested that the City waive service of summons. The opinion did not state that the claims against the City were dismissed or otherwise resolve their merits.

As to John Doe 1–13, the thirteen unnamed correctional officers, the court ordered the New York City Law Department to determine their identities, badge numbers, and addresses for service within sixty days. Within thirty days after receiving that information, Atadzhanov must file an amended complaint naming the officers. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and the court will screen it after filing. The court also warned that the action may be dismissed if Atadzhanov fails to notify the court of an address change.

Appeal and disposition

The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the order. The order was a screening and service order, not a decision on whether the alleged dietary deprivation violated the Constitution.