Donald v. Bennett
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-03144
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Donald v. Bennett, Judge Halpern dismissed claims against DOCCS and ordered service on four individual defendants in a medical-care lawsuit.
Clairmont Donald’s claims against DOCCS were dismissed, while his claims against Superintendent Stacie Bennett, Nurse Administrator P. Paige-Connier, Nurse Practitioner Terrie Armbruster, and Dr. Mikhail Gusman were directed to proceed to service.
What happened
In Donald v. Bennett, Clairmont Donald, representing himself, sued state corrections officials and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision under a federal civil-rights law, alleging inadequate medical care. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying court fees in advance.
The court dismissed Donald’s claims against the Department because the Constitution generally bars federal suits against a state and its agencies, and neither the State of New York nor its agencies had consented to this type of lawsuit. The court did not decide the medical-care allegations against the four individual defendants in this order.
Judge Philip Halpern ordered the Clerk’s Office to issue summonses and provide the U.S. Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Superintendent Stacie Bennett, Nurse Administrator P. Paige-Connier, Nurse Practitioner Terrie Armbruster, and Dr. Mikhail Gusman. The order also stated that Donald must request more time if service is not completed within 90 days after summonses are issued.
The detailed version
- Donald v. Bennett · No. 7:24-cv-03144
- Philip Halpern
- May 9, 2024
Background
Clairmont Donald, who was incarcerated at Sullivan County Correctional Facility and proceeded without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants denied him adequate medical care. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Screening standard
Because Donald was proceeding without prepaying fees and was incarcerated, the court reviewed the complaint under the federal screening statutes. Those statutes require dismissal of 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 also stated that it must read filings by people without lawyers liberally.
Claims against DOCCS
The court dismissed Donald’s claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, or DOCCS. It held that the Eleventh Amendment generally prevents private parties from suing a state in federal court and that this immunity extends to state agencies such as DOCCS. The court further stated that neither New York nor its agencies had consented to suit under § 1983, and that Congress had not removed the state’s immunity for these claims.
Service on individual defendants
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the required service forms for Superintendent Stacie Bennett, Nurse Administrator P. Paige-Connier, Nurse Practitioner Terrie Armbruster, and Dr. Mikhail Gusman. The U.S. Marshals Service was directed to receive the necessary paperwork and serve those defendants. The court extended the service period so that the 90-day period would run from the date the summonses were issued. It stated that Donald should request an extension if service was not completed within that period and warned that failing to timely request an extension could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Other instructions and disposition
Donald was required to notify the court in writing if his address changed. The order dismissed the claims against DOCCS and directed service of the claims against the four individual defendants. The order did not decide whether the individual defendants denied Donald adequate medical care.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.