Guest v. Department of Corrections City of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-00972
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Guest v. Department of Corrections, Judge Vyskocil dismissed claims against the Department and substituted New York City as a defendant.
Michael Guest’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction were dismissed, while the City of New York was substituted as a defendant and the claims against the other named defendants remained subject to the next steps in the case.
What happened
In Guest v. Department of Corrections City of New York, Michael Guest, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, brought claims under a federal civil-rights law concerning the risk of contracting COVID-19. He was representing himself and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court screened the complaint as required for prisoner cases. It concluded that the New York City Department of Correction could not be sued in its own name because it is a city agency. The court treated the complaint as also asserting claims against the City of New York and directed that the City replace the Department as a defendant.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction, directed the clerk to substitute the City of New York, and requested that the defendants waive formal service of the summons. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Guest v. Department of Corrections City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-00972
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 23, 2022
Background
Michael Guest, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center in the Bronx, filed this action without a lawyer. The court understood the complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, alleging deliberate indifference to a serious risk of contracting COVID-19 because of conditions at the facility. The court had previously granted Guest permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Screening standard
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires courts to screen complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief from governmental entities or their officers or employees. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally valid claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also must read complaints filed by people without lawyers liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims they reasonably suggest.
Department of Correction
The court dismissed Guest’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction because the Department is an agency of the City of New York and cannot generally be sued in its own name. Because Guest clearly intended to assert claims against the City, the court construed the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York and directed the clerk to amend the caption by replacing the Department with the City. The court stated that this amendment did not prevent the City from asserting defenses.
Service and disposition
The court directed the clerk to notify the Department and the New York City Law Department of the order. It requested that the City of New York and the individual defendants named in the order waive service of the summons. The court dismissed Guest’s claims against the Department, substituted the City as a defendant, and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether Guest’s COVID-19-related civil-rights claims ultimately had merit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.