The opinion of the court was delivered by: John Gleeson, United States District Judge:
On October 19, 2011, plaintiff Riley Jerome Williams, currently incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, commenced this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Williams seeks unspecified damages for the destruction of his property during a fire at George Motchan Detention Center ("GMDC"), at Rikers Island. I grant Williams's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, I dismiss the complaint against GMDC and grant Williams leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days as set forth below.
Williams's statement of claim consists of the following:
While I was staying in C-73 in dorm 14A the[re] [occurred] some kind of fire inside the unit. So all these officers also Captain's came telling every human body to get up and get dress. So that's just what everyone have done and was [escorted] to the Gym. After that taken to this next facility. Which was Anna M. Kross Center until this here um [parole] violation came up.
Compl. ¶ IV. Williams disclaims any medical injuries, but seeks compensation for his property that was destroyed during the fire. See id. ¶¶ IV.A & V.
In reviewing the complaint, I am mindful that Williams is proceeding pro se and that his pleadings should thus be held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires me to screen a civil complaint "in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and thereafter "dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint," if it "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a) & (b)(1); see also Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (directing courts to dismiss frivolous complaints by plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis).
To state a claim, a complaint must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim will have facial plausibility "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). "A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557) (alteration in original). A pro se complaint should not be dismissed without granting the plaintiff leave to amend "at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated." Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
I construe Williams's complaint as asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
the destruction of his property during the fire at GMDC was a
deprivation of property without due process of law.*fn1
To bring a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must allege that: "(1)
the conduct complained of [was] committed by a person acting under
color of state law; and (2) the conduct complained of . . . deprived
[the plaintiff] of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States." Pitchell v. Callan, 13
F.3d 545, 547 (2d Cir. 1994).
Momentarily putting aside the viability of Williams's claim, GMDC is not a proper defendant. Section 396 of the New York City Charter provides that "[a]ll actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law." N.Y. City Charter § 396. This provision has been construed to mean that New York City departments and agencies, such as the Department of Correction or its jails, as distinct from the City itself, lack the capacity to be sued. Ximines v. George Wingate High Sch., 516 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2008); David v. G.M.D.C., No. 01 Civ. 6931, 2002 WL 31748592, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2002) (dismissing prisoner's civil rights complaint against GMDC).
In addition, Williams has not alleged a plausible § 1983 claim. The deprivation of a prisoner's property does not violate due process if "the state makes available a meaningful post-deprivation remedy." Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 531 (1984); see also, e.g., DiBlasio v. Novello, 344 F.3d 292, 302 (2d Cir. 2003). Thus, where a state or city has provided adequate post-deprivation procedures, the loss of property generally does not give rise to a constitutional claim. See Jackson v. Burke, 256 F.3d 93, 96 (2d Cir. 2001); Love v. Coughlin, 714 F.2d 207, 208--09 (2d Cir. 1983); Douglas v. State of N.Y. Dep't of Correction, No. 88 Civ. 8493 (MJL), 1990 WL 83521, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 1990). ...