United States District Court, E.D. New York
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
K. Chen, United States District Judge.
October 10, 2017, Plaintiff Kenworth Scarlett,  currently
detained at the Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center, filed this
pro se action against Defendant Rikers Island.
Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B); however, Plaintiff is granted thirty
(30) days from the date of this Order to file an amended
complaint. The Court also grants Defendant's application
to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
appears to allege that he was arrested on May 17, 2008 and
that while he was in custody, he was “tortured, ”
beaten, and raped by an “Officer William” and an
“Officer Samuels”. (See Complaint, Dkt.
1, at 4.) He further alleges that he suffered a
“cracked . . . eye” and a “broken [left]
knee” as a result of both officers' actions and
medical malpractice. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges
that he “filed [a] lawsuit [in] 2012 [that] went to
Appeal Court and Supreme Court and got denied.”
(Id.) Plaintiff seeks “compensation and
protection from Police.” (Id. at 5.)
Complaint is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Pursuant to the in forma pauperis
statute, a district court shall dismiss a case if it
determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Pro se complaints are held to less
stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys, and
the Court is required to read Plaintiff's pro se
complaint liberally and interpret it as raising the strongest
arguments it suggests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007). The Court must grant leave to amend the
complaint if a liberal reading “gives any indication
that a valid claim might be stated.” Cuoco v.
Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). However, the
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 (2007).
only defendant Plaintiff names is Rikers Island, which is
part of the New York City Department of Correction, an agency
of the City of New York. The New York City Charter provides
that suits “shall be brought in the name of the City of
New York and not in that of any agency.” N.Y. City
Charter ch. 17, § 396; see also Jenkins v. City of
New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007). Because
Plaintiff may not sue a City agency, his claims against
Rikers Island are dismissed for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). See also
Freeman v. Rikers Island C-95, No. 14 CV 349 (ENV), 2014
WL 1315384, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014) (Rikers Island is
a non-suable entity); Farray v. Rikers Island
Correctional Facility, No. 12 CV 4717 (ARR), 2012 WL
5289608, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2012) (“Rikers Island
is not a ‘person' within the meaning of § 1983
and as part of the New York City Department of Correction, an
agency of the City of New York, cannot be sued
Claims Under Section 1983
construing Officers William and Samuels as Defendants,
Plaintiff still fails to provide sufficient information to
determine: (1) whether the claim is timely filed, (2) whether
venue is proper in this district, and (3) whether the claim
is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. First,
the only date Plaintiff mentions in the Complaint is his
arrest on May 17, 2008; however, this Complaint was filed on
October 10, 2017, over nine years later. Claims brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be filed within three
years of the date on which such claims accrue. Milan v.
Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961, 963 (2d Cir. 2015);
Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694, 703 (2d Cir.
1994). Second, Plaintiff does not state where he was
allegedly injured by the two officers, i.e. whether
the alleged incidents occurred in the Bronx, where he was
arrested and arraigned, or at Rikers Island, where he was
incarcerated. Third, to the extent Plaintiff alleges that he
filed a lawsuit in 2012, he is advised that if that lawsuit
alleged the same claims set forth herein, the doctrine of
res judicata may bar this action. Federated
Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398
(1981) (prior action based on same claims “precludes
the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that
were or could have been raised in that action”);
Monahan v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr., 214 F.3d 275,
284 (2d Cir. 2000).
to the extent Plaintiff wishes to pursue a negligence or
medical malpractice claim against members of Rikers Island
staff, he may not do so pursuant to Section 1983 in this
Court.Malpractice claims “cannot be brought
under Section 1983, because they sound in negligence, and
mere negligence does not rise to the level of a
constitutional tort.” Bromfield v. New York,
No. 15-CV-3529-CBA-RML, 2016 WL 2917611, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May
18, 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted);
see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06