Barnett v. State of New York

Background

LAFVORNE LEVI BARNETT, who is incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. The court had already granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Barnett is a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The opinion does not describe the specific constitutional violations alleged against the individual correction officers or the Village.

State of New York

The court dismissed Barnett’s claims against the State of New York. It held that the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity generally bars suits against it in federal court. The court further stated that New York had not waived that immunity and that Congress had not removed it when enacting § 1983.

“County of Ossining” and the Village of Ossining

Barnett named the “County of Ossining” as a defendant. The court stated that Ossining is a village within Westchester County and directed the clerk to dismiss the County of Ossining and substitute the Village of Ossining under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The substitution was without prejudice to defenses the Village may assert.

Service and Discovery

Because Barnett is proceeding without paying the filing fee upfront, the court directed the clerk to issue summonses and prepare the required U.S. Marshals Service forms for the Village of Ossining and correction officers A. Thomas, K. Edwards, and M. Banks. The Marshals Service is to serve those defendants. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses are issued and stated that Barnett should request more time if service is not completed within that period.

The court also held that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. Under that rule, the defendants must respond to specified prisoner discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims against the State of New York and dismissed the claims against the County of Ossining, directing substitution of the Village of Ossining. It ordered service on the Village and the three correction officers, applied Local Civil Rule 33.2, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.