Cato v. Westchester Medical Center

Background

Reynold Cato, who is incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility and is representing himself, brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks damages and alleges that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. The alleged events occurred primarily while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, and to a lesser extent at Fishkill Correctional Facility, as well as while he was treated at Westchester Medical Center.

The defendants identified in the complaint or its list of parties included Westchester Medical Center; Mark Miller; Deputy Superintendent Tuey; Doctors Ozu, Ashton, McGill, and Bentevejnz; Nurses Brewer, Mathew, Solstice, and Alexandria; Correctional Sergeant Noriega; and the State of New York. The court had previously allowed Cato to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Screening and dismissal of the State of New York

Federal law requires the court to screen a complaint filed by a prisoner proceeding without prepaying fees. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally valid claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court dismissed Cato’s claims under Section 1983 against the State of New York. It applied Eleventh Amendment immunity, a constitutional protection that generally prevents states from being sued in federal court unless the state has consented to the lawsuit or Congress has removed that protection. The court concluded that Congress had not removed New York’s immunity for Section 1983 claims and that New York had not consented to such suits. The court also stated that the claims were barred for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court lacked authority to hear them.

Adding defendants under Rule 21

The court used Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to add or remove a party when appropriate, to add six individuals as defendants. They were Jane Doe Assistant Commissioner, Jane Doe PREA Deputy Superintendent, First Deputy Superintendent Williams, Deputy Superintendent Demshik, DOCCS Special Investigations Officer Shawn Hanley, and Deacon Brucner.

The court found that although Cato had not listed these individuals as defendants in the caption, he alleged that they encountered him while he was incarcerated at Green Haven and that he told each of them about his medical condition. The court added them in light of those allegations and Cato’s status as a self-represented litigant. The amendment was without prejudice to any defenses those individuals might later assert.

Service of process

Because Cato was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to handle service of the complaint and summonses on the identified defendants. The order listed Westchester Medical Center, Miller, Tuey, Ozu, Ashton, Brewer, Mathew, Solstice, Alexandria, McGill, Bentevejnz, Noriega, Williams, Demshik, Hanley, and Brucner for service.

The order stated that if service is not completed within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Cato should request more time. It also required Cato to notify the court in writing if his address changes.

Identifying the Jane Doe defendants

The court directed the New York Attorney General to determine the identities and service addresses of Jane Doe Assistant Commissioner and Jane Doe PREA Deputy Superintendent. The order described the first as a female DOCCS assistant commissioner who encountered Cato at Green Haven on or about October 7, 2023. It described the second as a female Green Haven deputy superintendent responsible for enforcing the Prison Rape Elimination Act who encountered Cato on or about October 6 and October 11, 2023.

The Attorney General must provide the information to the court and Cato within 60 days of the order. Within 30 days after receiving it, Cato must file an amended complaint naming those defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will then screen the amended complaint and decide whether to order service on those defendants.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel dismissed Cato’s claims against the State of New York. The court directed the Clerk of Court to add the six individuals named above as defendants, issue summonses for the identified defendants, and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for service. The court also directed that the order and complaint be sent to the New York Attorney General for the identification of the two Jane Doe defendants.

Finally, the court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Cato permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order is a screening and service order; it does not decide the merits of the remaining claims.