Traore v. New York City Department of Corrections

Background

Abdoulaye Traore, appearing without a lawyer, brought a damages action alleging that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. The court interpreted the complaint as raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing claims for certain constitutional violations by state or local actors, and under state law. The named defendants were the New York City Department of Correction, referred to as the NYCDOC, and unidentified “Rikers Island Staff.”

The opinion states that Traore’s allegations concerned the prevention of COVID-19’s spread while he was in NYCDOC custody and an incident in which an NYCDOC employee or New York State Court Officer allegedly sprayed him with mace. The alleged events occurred on or about December 20, 2021.

Screening standard

Because Traore was allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That provision requires dismissal of an action, or part of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the subject matter. At the same time, the court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims suggested by the complaint.

Rulings concerning the NYCDOC and City of New York

The court dismissed Traore’s claims against the NYCDOC because, as a New York City agency, it is not an entity that can be sued separately from the City of New York. In light of Traore’s self-represented status and his apparent intention to sue the City, the court treated the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York and directed the Clerk to replace the NYCDOC with the City in the caption under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City might assert.

The court requested that the City waive service of summons and directed the Clerk to notify the NYCDOC and the New York City Law Department electronically. The court also directed the City to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2 within 120 days. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified, court-ordered discovery requests.

Identifying the unnamed defendants

Relying on the rule that a self-represented litigant is entitled to the district court’s assistance in identifying a defendant, the court ordered the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York and the Attorney General of the State of New York to investigate the identities of the individuals Traore sought to sue. The requested information included the NYCDOC personnel responsible for conditions concerning COVID-19 prevention and any NYCDOC employee or New York State Court Officer who allegedly sprayed Traore with mace. The attorneys were also ordered to provide, when appropriate, shield numbers and addresses where the individuals could be served.

The Corporation Counsel and Attorney General were ordered to provide this information to Traore and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving it, Traore must file an amended complaint naming the newly identified individuals. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it would screen that amended complaint and, if necessary, address service on the newly identified defendants.

Disposition

The court dismissed Traore’s claims against the “New York Department of Corrections” and directed the Clerk to add the City of New York as a defendant. It also ordered the service, discovery, and defendant-identification steps described above. Finally, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-payment assistance for purposes of an appeal.