Cooper v. Department of Correction NYC

Background

Tyrone Cooper, who was incarcerated at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island, filed this self-represented complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that permits claims for violations of federal constitutional rights by state or local officials. He had permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance and requested money damages.

Cooper alleged that correction officers interfered with his mental-health care, blocked his mail, took his evidence and other property, and assaulted and retaliated against him because he helped Andre Antrobus with legal work. He also alleged that Antrobus had experienced similar treatment.

Claims on behalf of Andre Antrobus

The court held that Cooper could not assert claims for Antrobus because a self-represented litigant may generally litigate only his own interests. The court dismissed any claims Cooper asserted on Antrobus’s behalf.

Claims brought by Cooper

For the mail allegations, the court treated the complaint as raising a mail-tampering claim. It found that Cooper had not alleged enough facts showing regular and unjustified interference with his mail, or that the alleged interference harmed his access to court or legal representation. The court granted leave to amend this claim.

The court dismissed Cooper’s property claim for failure to state a claim. It explained that a federal claim for loss of property generally is unavailable when state law provides an adequate remedy, and Cooper had not alleged that available state remedies were inadequate.

As to excessive force and retaliation, the court found that Cooper had not identified the individuals personally involved or provided enough detail about what happened. The court granted leave to amend those claims with additional facts.

Named defendants

The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Correction, which Cooper named in three different ways, because a New York City agency is not an entity that can be sued under the circumstances described in the order.

For the claims against New York City, the court explained that Cooper needed to allege a city policy, custom, or practice that caused the alleged constitutional violations. Because he had not provided facts suggesting that such a policy, custom, or practice was involved, the court granted leave to amend the claims against New York City.

State-law claims and amendment instructions

The court reserved its decision on whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—because the federal claims had not all been dismissed and Cooper was being allowed to amend.

The court granted Cooper 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must identify the individuals involved, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe injuries, and state the requested relief. The court permitted “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” designations when Cooper did not know a defendant’s name, but stated that using such designations would not pause the applicable three-year limitations period.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted leave to file an amended complaint. The court dismissed the claims asserted on Antrobus’s behalf, dismissed the property claim, and dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction entities. The court granted leave to amend the mail, excessive-force, retaliation, and New York City claims. The court stated that, absent a timely amendment or good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.