Reed v. Massett

Background

Everett Reed, who was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for certain constitutional violations by state actors. Reed alleged that the defendants failed to protect him from a violent prisoner. The opinion states that Reed was proceeding without a lawyer and had previously been granted permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Screening standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen Reed’s complaint because he was a prisoner seeking relief against government employees. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also had to read Reed’s filing liberally, but the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement showing that he was entitled to relief.

Claims against Officer L. Massett

The court held that a § 1983 claim requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. Reed did not allege facts explaining how Officer L. Massett was personally involved in the events underlying the claims. The court therefore dismissed Reed’s claims against Massett without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

The court granted Reed leave to file an amended complaint providing facts about Massett’s personal involvement. The deadline was April 14, 2022. The court stated that failing to file a timely amended complaint could result in dismissal of the claims against Massett with prejudice.

Service on named defendants

Because Reed had been allowed to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the paperwork needed for the United States Marshals Service to serve Superintendent Mark Royce and Deputy Superintendent of Security Anthony Russo. The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses were issued. Reed was required to notify the court in writing of any address change.

Unidentified defendants

Reed alleged that an “A-Officer” and a “B-Officer” were on duty when another prisoner, Tharpe, assaulted him on December 16, 2021, during a medication run. The court found that Reed clearly intended to sue those officers and directed the Clerk to add “John or Jane Doe 1” and “John or Jane Doe 2” as defendants. That addition was without prejudice to defenses the officers might later assert after being identified.

The court ordered the New York State Attorney General’s Office to determine the officers’ identities, badge numbers, and service addresses and provide that information to Reed and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving the information, Reed had to file an amended complaint naming the officers. The court would then screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, direct the Marshals Service to serve the newly identified defendants.

Disposition

The order dismissed the claims against Officer L. Massett without prejudice, granted Reed leave to amend those claims, added two unidentified officers as defendants, and directed steps for identifying and serving defendants. It did not decide whether Reed ultimately proved that any defendant violated his constitutional rights.