Johnson v. D.O.C./the State of New York

Background

Kamar Johnson filed the complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against government actors. He alleged that several Bloods gang members attacked him in the “2 Upper (housing area)” of the Otis B. Bantam Center on March 31, 2020, while a correction officer did not stop the assault. He also alleged that he was sprayed with a chemical agent, then housed in an intake unit where he slept on a dirty floor for 17 days and lacked access to a shower for 20 days.

The court had previously granted Johnson permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. Because Johnson was a prisoner suing governmental defendants, the court was required to screen the complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Rulings on the Named Defendants

The court dismissed Johnson’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction. It held that, under New York law, a city department or agency that is only an administrative part of the municipality cannot be sued separately.

The court also dismissed Johnson’s claims against the State of New York. It found that Johnson was in city custody, not state custody, and that the State had no involvement in the events described. The court further held that § 1983 claims against New York State were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which generally limits suits against a state in federal court.

Substitution and Identification of Defendants

Because Johnson was proceeding without a lawyer and 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 of Court to replace “D.O.C./State of New York” with the City of New York in the caption. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to defenses the City might later raise.

The court also directed the Clerk to add the unidentified correction officer as a John Doe defendant. Under the rule discussed in the opinion, a person proceeding without a lawyer is entitled to the court’s assistance in identifying an unknown defendant when the complaint provides enough information. The court ordered the New York City Law Department to determine the officer’s identity, badge number, and address for service within 60 days.

Johnson must file an amended complaint naming the officer within 30 days after receiving that information. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue a later order concerning service.

Other Orders and Disposition

The court requested that New York City waive service of the summons and directed electronic notice and mailing of the order and complaint to the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department.

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

The order’s conclusion states that the court dismisses Johnson’s claims against “D.O.C./State of New York” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), directs the addition of New York City and the John Doe correction officer, and denies permission to proceed without prepaying fees for any appeal because the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.