Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 23, 2022

Caraballo v. Department of Corrections City of New York

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-00971
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Caraballo v. Department of Corrections City of New York, Judge Vyskocil dismissed claims against DOC, substituted the City, and requested service waivers.

Who this affects

David Caraballo’s claims against the Department of Correction were dismissed; the City of New York was added as a defendant, and the individual defendants remained identified for service.

What happened

In Caraballo v. Department of Corrections City of New York, David Caraballo, representing himself, alleged that the defendants violated human rights and correctional services while he was held at the Vernon C. Bain Center.

The court screened his prisoner complaint after allowing him to proceed without paying fees upfront. It ruled that New York City’s Department of Correction is a city agency that cannot be sued, and treated the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York instead.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed Caraballo’s claims against the Department of Correction and directed the clerk to add the City as a defendant. The court also requested that the City and the individual defendants waive formal service of the lawsuit, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Caraballo v. Department of Corrections City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-00971
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Mar. 23, 2022

Background

David Caraballo, who was representing himself, brought this action against the New York City Department of Correction, former Department of Correction Commissioner Vincent Schiraldi, VCBC Correction Captain Reyez, VCBC Correction Captain Hamlet, and VCBC Warden Carter. He alleged that the defendants were “violating human rights [and] violating correctional services.” The opinion does not identify a more specific legal theory or describe the underlying events in detail.

The court had previously allowed Caraballo to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he was a prisoner seeking relief against government entities or employees, the court screened the complaint under the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Ruling

The court dismissed Caraballo’s claims against the Department of Correction because it is an agency of New York City and, under the New York City Charter, is not an entity that can be sued. The court construed Caraballo’s complaint as intending to assert claims against the City of New York and directed the clerk, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, to replace the Department of Correction with the City as a defendant. The opinion states that this amendment was without prejudice to defenses the City might assert.

The court directed the clerk to notify the Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department. It requested that the City, Vincent Schiraldi, Captain Reyez, Captain Hamlet, and Warden Carter waive service of summons. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide whether Caraballo’s underlying allegations were legally valid.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.