Brewster v. Aimes

Background

Tre’yshawn Brewster, who is incarcerated at Gouverneur Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. The named defendants were Officer Mataka Aimes, Officer Yancy, “Captain G.,” Rikers Island, and the New York City Department of Correction (DOC).

The court had previously granted Brewster permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The order explains that, when screening a prisoner’s complaint, the court 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.

Rulings

The court dismissed Brewster’s claims against Rikers Island and the DOC for failure to state a claim. It held that Rikers Island is a jail operated by the DOC and that the DOC is an agency of the City of New York. Under the New York City Charter, the DOC and its jails are not entities that can be sued.

Because Brewster was proceeding without a lawyer and appeared to intend to sue the City of New York, the court construed the complaint as asserting claims against the City. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the Clerk was directed to amend the case caption to replace Rikers Island and the DOC with the City of New York. The amendment was without prejudice to any defenses the City may assert. The order does not decide the merits of Brewster’s underlying constitutional allegations.

Service and discovery

The court requested that the City of New York, Officer Aimes, Officer Yancy, and Captain G. waive service of the summons. The Clerk was directed to notify the DOC and the New York City Law Department of the order and to mail Brewster an information package.

Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this action. Under that rule, the defendants must serve responses within 120 days to the specified, court-ordered interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The responses must quote each discovery request verbatim.

Appeal-related ruling

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 Brewster permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.