Urena v. City of New York

Background

Amaury Urena, who was detained in the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against certain government officials for constitutional violations. He alleged that, beginning at 7:00 p.m. on April 30, 2022, he and other detainees were taken to an intake area for transfer and held there until 9:00 p.m. the next day without blankets or mattresses. He further alleged that, from 10:00 p.m. on May 1 until the following morning, they were held on a bus while handcuffed with their hands behind their backs.

Urena sued the City of New York, Warden Caputo, and Warden John Doe. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In reviewing that type of complaint, the court was required 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 jurisdiction.

Claims Against the Wardens

The court held that a claim under Section 1983 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.

Because Urena alleged no facts showing how Warden Caputo or Warden John Doe were personally involved in the events, the court dismissed the claims against both wardens for failure to state a claim. The order did not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Claims Against Unidentified Correction Officers

Urena alleged that unidentified correction officers held him overnight in the intake unit and on the bus. The court interpreted the complaint as asserting claims against unidentified “John and Jane Doe correction officers” and directed the Clerk of Court to add those officers to the caption. The order stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses those defendants might later assert.

Because Urena was representing himself, the court directed the New York City Law Department, as the attorney and agent for the New York City Department of Correction, to determine the officers’ identities, badge numbers, and addresses for service. The Law Department must provide that information to Urena and the court within 60 days of the order.

Next Steps and Disposition

Within 30 days after receiving the information, Urena must file an amended complaint naming the Doe defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint after it is filed and may later ask the defendants to waive service.

The Clerk was also directed to notify the Department of Correction and the Law Department, send the order and complaint to the Law Department, and send Urena an information package and an amended-complaint form. The court requested that the City of New York waive service of the summons.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Urena fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order therefore resolved the claims against the two wardens at the screening stage but continued the process for identifying and pursuing claims against the unidentified correction officers. The court did not decide whether the alleged conditions of confinement were unconstitutional.