Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Casiano v. Smalls

United States District Court, S.D. New York

January 10, 2020

ANTHONY CASIANO, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN KISA SMALLS; CAPT. THEAGRE, NO. 1851; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER K. LUTON, NO. 5144; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FOOTS, NO. 5509; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER M.H. FORM, NO. 4016; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RUCKER, NO. 2398; JOHN DOE - CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, AS YET UNIDENTIFIED; THE CITY OF NEW YORK; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendants.

          ORDER OF SERVICE

          KATHERINE POLK FAILLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Sing Sing Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, while he was detained by the New York City Department of Correction, Defendants violated his constitutional rights. By Order dated July 9, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).[1] On January 7, 2020, the Court conducted an initial pretrial conference, during which Plaintiff notified the Court that certain defendants named in his Amended Complaint had not been served. (Dkt. #32). After reviewing the Amended Complaint, the Court takes notice of the fact that Defendants Department of Correction, Smalls, Theagere, Form, and Foots have not yet been served in this action. For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Department of Correction and Smalls, but requests that Defendants Theagere, Form, and Foots waive service of summons.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner's IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

         While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest, ” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits - to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

         The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, ” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible - not merely possible - that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id.

         DISCUSSION

         A. The Department of Correction

         For the reasons stated in the Court's Order of July 12, 2019 (Dkt. #8), Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Department of Correction remain dismissed.

         B. Warden Kisa Smalls

         For the reasons stated in the Court's Order of July 12, 2019 (Dkt. #8), Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Kisa Smalls remain dismissed. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not allege any facts showing how Defendant Smalls was personally involved in the events underlying his claims. Plaintiff's claims against this Defendant are therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         C. Waiver of Service

         The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of this Order. The Court requests that Capt. Theagere # 1851; Correctional Officer M.H. Form, # 4016; and Correctional Officer Foots, #5509 waive service of summons.

         D. John ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.