Melendez v. New York City Health & Hospitals

Background

Pablo E. Melendez filed a case while incarcerated at West Facility on Rikers Island. He represented himself and asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows claims for certain constitutional violations by persons acting under state law, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

Because Melendez was proceeding without prepaying the fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of an insufficient, frivolous, malicious, or improperly directed claim, including a claim seeking money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Rulings on the Defendants

The court dismissed Melendez’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction because a New York City agency is not an entity that can be sued separately. The opinion refers to that defendant in the caption as “D.O.C. Department of Corrections.”

The court also dismissed the claims against Correctional Officer Guity and Deputy Warden Jane Doe for failure to state a claim. The court explained that a § 1983 plaintiff must allege each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. A defendant cannot be held liable merely because that person employs or supervises someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. The court found that Melendez had not alleged facts showing how Guity or Jane Doe were personally involved.

The court granted Melendez leave to replead his claims against Guity, Jane Doe, and any other individual defendants. The amended complaint must identify the individuals involved, explain what each person did or failed to do, and provide relevant dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it.

Service and Discovery

The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Correctional Health Services. Because Melendez was proceeding without prepayment of fees, the court extended the time for service to 90 days after the summons is issued. The court stated that Melendez should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.

The court also stated that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. Under that rule, the defendants must serve responses to the specified prisoner discovery requests within 120 days of the order and must quote each request verbatim in the responses.

Conclusion

The court dismissed Melendez’s claims against D.O.C., Correctional Officer Guity, and Deputy Warden Jane Doe. It granted him leave to replead his claims against Guity, Jane Doe, and other individual defendants, and directed service on Correctional Health Services. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepayment of fees for an appeal.