United States District Court, E.D. New York
Plaintiff: Anthony Grice, pro se  Downstate Correctional
Defendants: Officer Sperling Liora M. Ben-Sorek, Esq. Nassau
County Attorney's Office
County Sheriff's Department, County of Nassau, and
Michael J. Sposato No appearances.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
January 23, 2017, incarcerated pro se plaintiff
Anthony Grice (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in
this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section
1983”) against the Nassau County Correctional Center
(“the Jail”) and Officer Sperling (together,
“Defendants”), alleging, inter alia,
that he was assaulted on January 4, 2017 while incarcerated
at the Jail. (See the “First Complaint”,
Grice v. Nassau Cty. Corr. Ctr., No. 17-CV-0476.) By
Memorandum and Order dated February 6, 2017, the Court
granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis, dismissed Plaintiff's claims as against
the Jail, and ordered service of the summons and complaint
upon Officer Sperling. (See Mem. & Order, Docket
Entry 6.) On March 29, 2017, Officer Sperling filed an Answer
to the Complaint, (Ans., Docket Entry 10) and, on March 30,
2017, Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay entered a discovery
scheduling order (Scheduling Order, Docket Entry 11).
However, the Scheduling Order that was mailed to Plaintiff
was returned and marked “Return to Sender”,
“Unable to Forward”, and “Unclaimed.”
(See Docket Entry 15.)
February 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed another Complaint against
Officer Sperling and has included as additional Defendants:
(1) the Nassau County Sheriff's Department (the
“Sheriff's Department”); (2) the County of
Nassau (“Nassau County”); and (3) Michael J.
Sposato (“Sheriff Sposato”) (“the Second
Complaint”). The Second Complaint (assigned Docket
Number 17-CV-1232) seeks to challenge the same January 4,
2017 incident described in the First Complaint.
review of the declaration in support of the application to
proceed in forma pauperis filed together with the
Second Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff is qualified
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, Plaintiff's claims against the Sheriff's
Department are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and against Nassau
County and Sheriff Sposato are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Because the remaining claims against Officer Sperling in the
Second Complaint are repetitive of the claims alleged in the
First Complaint and are against the same Defendant, the Court
consolidates them under the first-filed Complaint,
17-CV-0476, and DIRECTS that the case assigned docket number
17-CV-1232 be CLOSED. All future filings shall be made only
under docket number 17-CV-0476. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS
service of the Summons and Second Complaint upon Officer
Sperling by the United States Marshal Service
Second Complaint is submitted on the Court's Section 1983
Complaint and is brief. The Statement of Claim is a single
January 4, 2017 I was leaving medical when a known gang
member enter an argument and fight with me, upon a tussel
insued I was grabbed by Officer Sperling by my shirt and neck
and thrown to the floor with my head hitting the wall and
busting open leaving a 3 inch gash needing 8 staples to
(Compl. ¶ IV.) Plaintiff alleges: “My head, neck,
back, and shoulder in which required 8 staples to close the
wound I have headaches and my neck, back, and shoulder are in
constant pain.” (Compl. ¶ IV.A.) For relief,
Plaintiff seeks “monetary, procedure changes,
repremand, therapy and medical treatment.” (Compl.
In Forma Pauperis Application
review of Plaintiff's declarations in support of his
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). ...