Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 5, 2024

McPhee v. Laino

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-10095
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil RightsSection 1983Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In McPhee v. Laino, Judge Briccetti granted New York State’s dismissal motion under the Eleventh Amendment, while the case continued against other defendants.

Who this affects

Aasim McPhee’s claims against the State of New York were dismissed, and the State was terminated as a defendant. The claims against Sergeant Nicholas Laino and Corrections Officers Brian Collins, Melissa Cuomo, Curtis Egloff, Brendan Haberin, Latanya Taylor, Ileshema Thomas, and Jacqueline Webber continued.

What happened

In McPhee v. Laino, Aasim McPhee, representing himself, alleged that correctional staff at Green Haven Correctional Facility beat him, restrained him, pepper-sprayed him, denied him evidence at a disciplinary hearing, and denied him medical treatment. He sued the State of New York and several individuals under a federal civil-rights law.

New York State asked the court to dismiss the claims against it. The court ruled that the Eleventh Amendment generally protects states and state agencies from lawsuits for money damages. Because New York had not given up that protection and Congress had not removed it for these claims, the court said it lacked authority to hear McPhee’s claims against the State.

Judge Briccetti granted the State’s motion to dismiss and removed New York State as a defendant. The case continued against the remaining defendants, who had answered the complaint. The court also denied McPhee permission to appeal without paying fees, 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
McPhee v. Laino · No. 7:22-cv-10095
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Mar. 5, 2024

Background

Aasim McPhee, representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, brought a civil-rights action under Section 1983 against the State of New York, Sergeant Nicholas Laino, and Corrections Officers Brian Collins, Melissa Cuomo, Curtis Egloff, Brendan Haberin, Latanya Taylor, Ileshema Thomas, and Jacqueline Webber. The complaint, read broadly, alleged violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and First Amendments.

McPhee alleged that, while incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility in Stormville, New York, staff subjected him to a “brutal and sustained beating,” bound his hands and feet, and pepper-sprayed him. He also alleged that he was placed in a special housing unit, denied access to certain evidence during a disciplinary hearing, and denied medical treatment. He sought money damages.

Motion and Analysis

The State of New York moved to dismiss the second amended complaint as to the State only under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court explained that, because the State’s argument was based only on Eleventh Amendment immunity, the motion was more appropriately treated as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Eleventh Amendment generally prevents states from being sued unless they waive that immunity or Congress removes it. The protection also extends to state agencies that function as arms of the state, including the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. The court stated that New York had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it for McPhee’s Section 1983 damages claims.

The opinion notes that McPhee’s handwritten caption could possibly be read to name the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision separately. The court said that, if McPhee intended to sue that agency separately, the same Eleventh Amendment reasoning would bar his damages claims against it.

Ruling

The court dismissed McPhee’s claims against the State of New York and granted the State’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk was directed to terminate the State as a defendant and terminate the motion. Because the other defendants had answered, the case was to proceed against them, with an initial conference to be scheduled separately.

Judge Briccetti certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied McPhee permission to appeal without paying fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.