Andrews v. All of the officers in E-North

Background

Eric Andrews, who was incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility and was proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violations of federal rights. He named Sullivan Correctional Facility and “all of the officers in E-North” as defendants. Andrews alleged that correctional staff violated his constitutional rights because he is Black. His allegations included that staff hated him because of his race, would not protect him from people working at the facility, paid gangs to hurt him, used a racial slur, threatened to harm him, and read his mail. He asserted failure-to-protect, equal-protection, and excessive-force claims. The opinion states that he did not provide dates for the events.

Screening and claims against Sullivan

Because Andrews was incarcerated and had permission to proceed without prepaying fees, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The screening rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court held that Andrews’s § 1983 claims against Sullivan Correctional Facility were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court treated Sullivan as a correctional facility operated by a New York State agency and therefore as an arm of the State. It dismissed all claims brought against Sullivan under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). The court noted an exception for certain suits seeking prospective injunctive relief against state officials, and it concluded that Andrews appeared to be alleging ongoing violations and might seek prospective relief. It therefore allowed him to amend his claims against individual officers.

Claims against the correctional officers

The court held that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8, which requires a short and plain statement giving each defendant fair notice of the claims and the facts supporting them. Andrews named all officers in E-North as a group, but did not provide dates or specific facts showing what any particular officer did. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires each defendant’s direct and personal involvement; an officer cannot be held liable merely because the officer supervised someone else.

The court did not state that the claims against the individual officers were dismissed at this stage. Instead, it granted Andrews leave to amend. The amended complaint must identify the individual officers involved, or use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” with identifying information if Andrews did not know their names; describe the relevant events, approximate dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief; and repeat any facts or claims from the original complaint that he wanted the court to consider. The court cautioned that naming an unknown defendant would not stop the three-year limitations period from running.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Andrews 60 days to file an amended complaint. The order required him to submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 21-CV-10518 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The order stated that if Andrews failed to comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepayment of fees.