Walker v. Department of Correction

Background

Kevin V. Walker, who was incarcerated at the time of the order, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer. He sought damages and injunctive relief based on alleged incidents involving correctional officers and other inmates at New York City correctional facilities. The court understood the complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law permitting certain claims against state or local officials, as well as state-law claims. Walker had permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront, although the court noted that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee under federal law.

Screening standard

Because Walker was a prisoner proceeding without paying fees, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 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. The court also explained that it must read self-represented complaints liberally, while still requiring enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Department of Correction

The court dismissed Walker’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction for failure to state a claim. It held that the Department is an agency of the City of New York and is not a separate entity that can be sued. The opinion did not dismiss the claims against the City of New York on that ground.

Correction Officer James

Although Walker did not list Correction Officer James as a defendant, he alleged that James was assigned to the Anna M. Kross Center, that he told her another inmate had threatened him with a knife, and that she did nothing. Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the court directed the Clerk of Court to add James as a defendant. The court stated that this addition was without prejudice to any defenses James might assert.

Service and discovery

The court requested that the City of New York and Correction Officers King, Colon, James, Jackson, and Firshein waive service of summonses. It also ordered those defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2 within 120 days. That rule requires responses to specified discovery requests in certain prisoner cases.

Identifying unnamed defendants

The court found that Walker had provided enough information for the City’s Corporation Counsel to identify the unnamed correctional officers and inmates involved in the alleged incidents. It ordered Corporation Counsel to provide their identities, service addresses, and, when appropriate, badge numbers to Walker and the court within 60 days.

After receiving that information, Walker must file a second amended complaint within 30 days. The second amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. The court stated that it would screen the new complaint and then address service and discovery for any newly identified defendants as appropriate.

Appeal-fee ruling and disposition

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The order dismissed Walker’s claims against the Department of Correction, added Correction Officer James, directed service-related steps and discovery, and required assistance in identifying unnamed defendants. It did not resolve the merits of Walker’s allegations against the remaining defendants.