United States District Court, E.D. New York
Che' White, pro se Nassau County Correctional Center East Meadow, NY, for Plaintiff.
No appearances, Defendants.
JOANNA SEYBERT, District Judge.
On September 3, 2014, incarcerated pro se plaintiff Che' White ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") against the Nassau County Sheriff's Department and an unnamed Nassau County Corrections Officer who is alleged to have driven van 2732 on June 18, 2014 at approximately 4:00 p.m. ("John Doe" and together, "Defendants"), accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Upon review of the declaration in support of the application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff's financial status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a)(1). Therefore, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. However, for the reasons that follow, the claim against the Nassau County Sheriff's Department is sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the claim against the "John Doe" is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) (B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).
Plaintiff's brief, handwritten Complaint, submitted on the Court's Section 1983 complaint form, alleges that, on June 18, 2014, he was injured when the corrections van in which he was riding rear-ended the vehicle in front of it. (Compl. ¶ IV.) More specifically, Plaintiff claims that he was "jerked forward on impact" and because of the way in which he was handcuffed, his left shoulder, neck, and back were injured. (Compl. ¶ IV.) Plaintiff further claims that his left knee was injured because it hit the seat in front of him. (Compl. ¶ IV.) Plaintiff claims that the officer driving the van did not stop to check on the inmates after the accident and that "medical treatment wasn't given until one hour later." (Compl. ¶¶ IV, IV.A.) According to Plaintiff, although the van was closest to Winthrop Hospital at the time of the accident, medical care was withheld until the van returned the inmates to the Nassau County Correctional Center. (Compl. ¶ IV.A.) Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks an unspecified sum as "compensation" for his alleged injuries. (Compl. ¶ V.)
I. In Forma Pauperis Application
Upon review of Plaintiff's declaration in support of the application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff is qualified to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Therefore, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
II. Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Section 1915 of Title 28 requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii), 1915A(b). The Court is required to dismiss the action as soon as it makes such a determination. See id. § 1915A(b).
Courts are obliged to construe the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liberally. See Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008); McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004). However, a complaint must plead sufficient facts to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "A claim has 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citations omitted). The plausibility standard requires "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. at 678; accord Wilson v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 671 F.3d 120, 128 (2d Cir. 2011). While "detailed ...