Alli v. Sterling
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:24-cv-02734
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Alli v. Edmounds, Judge Broderick dismissed claims against ten defendants with leave to replead and ordered service steps for others.
Umar Alli’s claims against ten defendants were dismissed with leave to replead; claims involving other listed defendants proceeded to service-related steps, and the case became subject to specified discovery requirements.
What happened
In Umar Alli v. Edmounds, et al., Umar Alli, who was incarcerated, brought a lawsuit without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights.
During required screening of the complaint, the court found that Alli had not alleged how ten defendants were personally involved in the alleged violations. The court dismissed the claims against those defendants but allowed Alli to file an amended complaint.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also directed notice to city correction and law departments, requested that 25 defendants waive service, and applied a local rule requiring responses to specified discovery requests within 120 days after service.
The detailed version
- Alli v. Sterling · No. 1:24-cv-02734
- Vernon Broderick
- May 10, 2024
Background
Umar Alli, who was incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The court had previously granted permission for him to proceed without paying the filing fee at the outset, although the opinion explains that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee over time.
Screening and Personal Involvement
The Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen Alli’s complaint because he was seeking relief against governmental defendants. The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from a defendant legally protected from such relief.
For a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that each defendant was directly and personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation. A person cannot be held liable merely because that person supervised or employed someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights.
The court found that Alli had not alleged facts showing the personal involvement of Brown #1699, Brown #1689, Captain Moodie #593, Captain Molina, Investigator Segovia, the medical doctors identified as John Doe who were on duty on April 15, April 23, and May 1, 2021, John Doe of GRVC Main Yard 2, John Doe of GRVC Recreation Officer A, Jane Doe of GRVC Cap CMC Max A, or John Doe of GRVC Recreation Officer B.
Rulings and Further Proceedings
The court dismissed Alli’s claims against those ten defendants for failure to state a claim, with leave to replead. This allowed Alli to file an amended complaint asserting facts about those defendants if he wished to do so.
The Clerk of Court was directed to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department electronically. The court requested that 25 other listed defendants waive service of summons. The requested-service list included Captain Molina, even though Captain Molina was also included in the group whose claims the court dismissed for lack of alleged personal involvement.
The court also ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applied. Under that rule, the defendants must serve responses to specified prisoner-case discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses. The Clerk was directed to mail Alli an information package.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.