United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION AND ORDER
Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J.
Aragon (“Plaintiff”), acting pro se and
in forma pauperis, brings this action against the
State of New York (“New York”), the City of New
York (“City”), and the Department of Corrections
and Correctional Supervision (“DOCCS”, and
collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (“Section 1983”). Plaintiff alleges
that the conditions of his confinement at the Otis Bantum
Correctional Center (“Bantum”) amount to cruel
and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Plaintiff further claims false imprisonment as a result of an
unlawful conviction in state court. The City brings the
instant motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
(“Am. Compl.”) and Second Amended Complaint
(“Sec. Am. Compl.”) pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below,
the City's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED.
construed, Plaintiff alleges that he was subject to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Bantum on
Rikers Island starting on October 22, 2014. Compl., at 2.
Specifically, Plaintiff claims that he was “forced to
live in inhumane conditions” due to “insects,
ants, roaches, lead poisoning, asbestos, etc.” and a
“lack of vitamins and food, [and] non-privacy.”
Am. Compl., at 1. As a result, Plaintiff states he suffers
from “external and internal f[u]ngus and [rashes] to
body, ” infections to his lungs and throat as well as
mental anguish. Am. Compl., at 1-2.
October 22, 2014, Plaintiff requested to be moved from Bantum
due to these conditions, but was ignored by two prison
officials. Compl., Doc. 1-1, at 2. Plaintiff alleges to have
requested medical attention on October 22, 2014 due to his
exposure to the “inhumane conditions, ” and
claims to have submitted medical grievances on October 23,
2014. Compl., Doc. 1-2, at 1.
addition, Plaintiff seeks damages based on a false
imprisonment claim resulting from an unlawful conviction in
state court. Sec. Am. Compl., at 2. Plaintiff claims that he
was falsely imprisoned based on “Defendant's
guidelines, practices, patterns and procedures, ”
without any further explanation. Id.
filed the instant action on December 8, 2014 against Jane Doe
1, Jane Doe 2, Bantum, and Rikers Island. Compl. On March 20,
2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against
Bantum because it is not an entity that can be sued. Doc. 13.
The Court instructed the Clerk of the Court to replace Bantum
with the City of New York pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 21. Id.
August 17, 2015, the Court granted the City's request for
an order to show cause on why this action should not be
dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) based on Plaintiff's failure to
keep the Court apprised of his current residence. Doc. 22.
After Plaintiff failed to respond to this and two subsequent
orders to show cause dated September 4 and October 20, 2015,
respectively, Docs. 22-24, the action was dismissed by the
Court without prejudice on December 2, 2015. Doc. 25.
received a letter from Plaintiff on December 4, 2015
explaining that he had not responded because he had been
incarcerated, Doc. 27, the Court vacated the dismissal,
requested the Clerk of the Court to reopen the case, and
directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. Doc. 28. On
February 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint.
Doc. 34. On that same day, the Court terminated
Plaintiff's claims against Rikers Island, Jane Doe 1, and
Jane Doe 2 pursuant to Rule 21.
March 10, 2016, the Court held an initial conference, during
which Plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended
complaint to cure the factual deficiencies in his prior
complaints. Doc. 37. The Court provided specific instructions
to Plaintiff on the details to be included in the amended
pleading. After receiving several extensions of
time, see Docs. 41-42, Plaintiff filed his Second
Amended Complaint on November 15, 2016. On that same day, the
Court terminated Plaintiff's claims against the
Department of Correctional Services.
December 1, 2016, the City filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Second Amended
Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Docs. 44-45. On January
20, 2017, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant's
motion. Opp. Mem. To date, the City has not replied to
Plaintiff's opposition memorandum.
Rule 12(b)(6) Motion ...