Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 7, 2024

Culbreth v. Manuel

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:24-cv-00497
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
Section 1983Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Culbreth v. Manuel, Judge Halpern dismissed claims against the jail, added Orange County and Sergeant Brahm, and ordered service on three defendants.

Who this affects

Kareem Culbreth’s claims against Orange County Jail were dismissed. Orange County and Sergeant Brahm were added as defendants, and service was ordered on Correction Officer Manuel (Badge #500), Sergeant Brahm, and Orange County.

What happened

In Culbreth v. Manuel, Kareem Culbreth, who is representing himself, alleged that the defendants violated his rights. The court treated the complaint as raising constitutional claims under a federal civil-rights law and related state-law claims. Culbreth had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.

The court dismissed Culbreth’s claims against Orange County Jail because the jail is not a person that can be sued under that federal civil-rights law. The court directed the Clerk to replace the jail with Orange County as a defendant and to add Sergeant Brahm, whom Culbreth alleged refused to provide medical attention after a car accident.

Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Correction Officer Manuel, Sergeant Brahm, and Orange County. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Culbreth v. Manuel · No. 7:24-cv-00497
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Feb. 7, 2024

Background

Kareem Culbreth, who is proceeding without a lawyer, filed claims alleging that the defendants violated his rights. The court construed the complaint as asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against a person who violates federal rights under state authority, along with related state-law claims. The court had previously granted Culbreth permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.

Screening of claims against Orange County Jail

During its required review of the complaint, the court determined that Orange County Jail is not a “person” that can be sued under Section 1983. The court therefore dismissed Culbreth’s claims against Orange County Jail for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Because Culbreth was representing himself and appeared to intend to sue Orange County, the court directed the Clerk to replace Orange County Jail with Orange County as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to any defenses Orange County might later assert.

Addition of Sergeant Brahm

Although Culbreth did not name Sergeant Brahm as a defendant, the complaint alleged that Brahm refused to provide him with medical attention after he was in a car accident. The court directed the Clerk to add Sergeant Brahm as a defendant under Rule 21. That amendment was also stated to be without prejudice to any defenses Brahm might later assert.

Service of process

Because Culbreth was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk to issue summonses and prepare service forms for Correction Officer Manuel, Badge #500; Sergeant Brahm; and Orange County. The court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve those defendants. The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued, unless Culbreth requests an extension. It also required Culbreth to notify the court in writing if his address changes.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims against Orange County Jail; directed the Clerk to add Orange County and Sergeant Brahm as defendants; and directed issuance and service of summonses for Correction Officer Manuel, Sergeant Brahm, and Orange County. Judge Philip M. Halpern certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. This order addressed pleading screening, party identification, and service; it did not decide whether Culbreth’s underlying constitutional or state-law claims were proven.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.