Andrews v. All of the officers in E-North
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-10518
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
Andrews v. Officer from Sullivan Correctional Facility: Judge Halpern dismissed Andrews’s amended civil-rights complaint for failing to identify defendants and allege specific facts.
Eric Andrews’s amended § 1983 claims against unidentified correctional officers were dismissed. Claims concerning Attica and Warsaw Hospital were not transferred, and further amendment was denied.
What happened
In Andrews v. Officer from Sullivan Correctional Facility, Eric Andrews, who was representing himself, sued unidentified correctional officers under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that officers at Sullivan Correctional Facility and Attica Correctional Facility threatened to kill him and that people were waiting to stab him. He also referred to treatment at Warsaw Hospital and sought money damages from each officer.
The court found that Andrews did not identify any defendant by name or describe any unidentified defendant well enough for the New York Attorney General’s Office to determine who the person was. The court also found that his broad statements did not provide enough specific facts showing that any particular officer was personally involved in violating his rights. Because the incidents at Attica and Warsaw Hospital occurred in another federal district and Andrews did not identify defendants employed there, the court declined to transfer those claims.
Judge Philip M. Halpern dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and denied further permission to amend because Andrews had already been given an opportunity and instructions to correct the same problem. The court also denied his permission to proceed without paying court fees on appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Andrews v. All of the officers in E-North · No. 7:21-cv-10518
- Philip Halpern
- May 19, 2022
Background
Eric Andrews, who was incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility and was representing himself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against unidentified correctional officers. He was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. After Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain gave him permission to amend his original complaint and instructed him to identify individual officers and provide supporting facts for each claim, Andrews filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint named four broadly described “Correctional Officers from 3 to 11.” Andrews alleged that correctional officers at Attica Correctional Facility had tried to make him harm himself, that similar conduct continued at Sullivan, and that he was not safe. He also referred to threats at or involving Warsaw Hospital and alleged that he had been seriously harmed after putting something in his mouth. He sought justice and one million dollars from each officer.
Failure to identify defendants and plead personal involvement
The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. A person cannot be held liable merely because that person supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights.
The court held that Andrews had not named an identifiable defendant or described any John Doe defendant in enough detail for the Attorney General’s Office to identify the person. His allegations that correctional staff wanted to kill him were broad assertions without facts connecting any particular officer to specific unlawful conduct. The court therefore concluded that the amended complaint did not state a plausible claim for relief.
Claims involving Attica and Warsaw Hospital
The court noted that Attica and Warsaw Hospital are in Wyoming County, which is within the Western District of New York. Because Andrews did not name any defendant employed at either location, the court declined to transfer the action there. The court stated that Andrews would have to file a new action in the Western District of New York if he intended to pursue claims concerning those events and identify the individual defendants he believed violated his rights.
Further amendment and disposition
The court denied further permission to amend. It reasoned that Andrews had already received an opportunity to correct the deficiencies and had been specifically instructed to identify individual officers and state facts supporting each claim, but did not do so.
Judge Philip M. Halpern dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the prisoner-screening provisions cited in the order. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Andrews permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.