Ortiz v. New York City

Background

Juan Ortiz, who was detained in the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named New York City, the New York City Department of Correction (DOC), and Correction Officer Caraballo #4513 as defendants. The opinion states that Ortiz alleged he was injured after being left handcuffed in his cell overnight. He also stated that he repeatedly asked to see a doctor but was told that nothing could be done.

The court had previously granted Ortiz permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It explained that, during statutory screening, it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it must interpret self-represented pleadings liberally and read them to raise the strongest claims they suggest.

Claims Against the Department of Correction

The court dismissed Ortiz’s claims against the DOC because, under New York City Charter § 396, a city agency generally is not an entity that can be sued separately. In light of Ortiz’s self-represented status, the court construed his allegations against the DOC as allegations against New York City, which was already a named defendant.

Service of Process

The court directed the Clerk of Court to notify the DOC and the New York City Law Department of the order. It requested that New York City and Correction Officer Caraballo #4513 waive service of summons.

Leave to Amend the Medical-Care Claim

The court granted Ortiz leave to file an amended complaint alleging facts supporting a § 1983 claim for inadequate medical care. The amended complaint must identify the individual or individuals who were personally involved in allegedly denying him adequate medical care. If Ortiz did not know a defendant’s name, the court permitted him to use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe,” but stated that using a placeholder name would not stop the three-year limitations period from running.

The court stated that the amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. Therefore, any facts or claims Ortiz wanted to preserve from the original complaint had to be repeated in the amended complaint. The order required him to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-CV-2047.

Legal Clinic and Appeal

The court referred Ortiz to the New York Legal Assistance Group’s clinic for self-represented civil litigants. The order explained that the clinic is operated by a private organization and is not part of the court.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Ortiz permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The Clerk was also directed to mail Ortiz an information package.

Disposition

The court dismissed Ortiz’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction, requested service waivers from New York City and Correction Officer Caraballo #4513, granted leave to amend the inadequate-medical-care claim, referred Ortiz to the legal clinic, and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.