Aaron v. Keyser
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-05258
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Aaron v. Keyser, Judge Halpern dismissed claims against two officials and a security dog while directing service on three officers.
Shavon Aaron’s claims against the Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility and the Director of the Office of Special Investigations were dismissed without prejudice, and her claims against the security dog K-09-05 were dismissed. Sergeant Mlark, Officer S. Keyser, and Officer Preston remained subject to service of the summons and complaint at this stage.
What happened
In Aaron v. Keyser, Shavon Aaron alleged that a security dog bit her while she visited her husband at Green Haven Correctional Facility and that correction officers then denied her medical attention. She brought the case without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law.
The court dismissed without prejudice Aaron’s claims against the Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility and the Director of the Office of Special Investigations because she did not allege their personal involvement. The court also dismissed her claims against K-09-05 because a dog is not a person who can be sued under that law.
Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Sergeant Mlark, Officer S. Keyser, and Officer Preston. Aaron must serve them within 90 days or request more time; otherwise, the court may dismiss the claims for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Aaron v. Keyser · No. 7:21-cv-05258
- Philip Halpern
- Sept. 8, 2021
Background
Shavon Aaron brought this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for certain constitutional violations by people acting under state authority. The filing fee had been paid. Aaron alleged that, while visiting her husband at Green Haven Correctional Facility, a security dog bit her on the buttock and caused injuries. She also alleged that correction officers denied her medical attention afterward.
Claims dismissed against two officials
The court dismissed without prejudice Aaron’s federal claims against the Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility and the Director of the Office of Special Investigations. The court explained that a § 1983 plaintiff must allege each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the claimed constitutional violation. Aaron did not allege facts showing how either official was personally involved in the events. The court therefore dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
The court added that any state-law claims against those defendants would have to be brought against the State of New York in the New York State Court of Claims, under the provision cited in the opinion.
Claims against the security dog
The court dismissed Aaron’s claims against K-09-05, identified as a Green Haven security dog. It held that the dog is not a “person” under § 1983 and does not have the capacity to be sued.
Service on remaining defendants and disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Sergeant Mlark, Officer S. Keyser, and Officer Preston. Aaron was directed to serve the summons and complaint on each defendant within 90 days after the summonses were issued. The court stated that, if she neither served the defendants nor requested an extension within that period, it may dismiss the claims against them under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.
Judge Philip M. Halpern’s order therefore dismissed from the action the Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, the OSI Director, and K-09-05, while directing issuance of summonses for Sergeant Mlark, Officer S. Keyser, and Officer Preston.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.