Robertson v. Sullivan Correctional Facility
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-01365
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Robertson v. Sullivan Correctional Facility, Judge Karas dismissed claims against the facility, ordered service on five defendants, and denied appeal IFP.
Erick Robertson’s claims against Sullivan Correctional Facility were dismissed, while the case was directed to proceed toward service on William Keyser, A. Justiniano, E. Simmons, J. Sircable, and A. Escobar.
What happened
In Robertson v. Sullivan Correctional Facility, Erick Robertson, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued the facility and five employees under a civil-rights law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.
The court had allowed Robertson to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront and then screened his complaint as required in prisoner cases. The court dismissed claims against Sullivan Correctional Facility because a prison facility is not a person that can be sued under the civil-rights law.
The court ordered the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve Superintendent William Keyser, A. Justiniano, E. Simmons, J. Sircable, and A. Escobar. Judge Karas also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Robertson v. Sullivan Correctional Facility · No. 7:24-cv-01365
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 29, 2024
Background
Erick Robertson, who is incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. He named Sullivan Correctional Facility, Superintendent William Keyser, A. Justiniano, E. Simmons, J. Sircable, and A. Escobar as defendants.
The court had previously granted Robertson permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Because Robertson is a prisoner proceeding under that permission and sued a governmental facility and governmental employees, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Ruling on Sullivan Correctional Facility
The court dismissed Robertson’s claims against Sullivan Correctional Facility. It held that Section 1983 allows suit against a “person” who violated rights under the Constitution or federal laws, and that a prison facility is not a “person” for purposes of Section 1983. The opinion does not separately explain the disposition of any claims against the facility under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act.
Service on the Individual Defendants
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare summonses and U.S. Marshals Service process forms for William Keyser, A. Justiniano, E. Simmons, J. Sircable, and A. Escobar, and to send the necessary papers to the Marshals Service for service. Because Robertson is proceeding without prepaying fees, the court said he may rely on the court and the Marshals Service to carry out service.
The court extended the service period so that the 90-day period begins when the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within 90 days after issuance, Robertson was told to request an extension. The court also stated that Robertson must notify the court in writing if his address changes.
Other Disposition
The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. Judge Kenneth M. Karas signed the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.