JASON SIMMONS v. NYC DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; COMMISSIONER OF NYC DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WARDEN OF RIKERS FACILITY; NYC POLICE DEPARTMENT; JANE DOE, ESQ.; ALAN M PERRY, PHD.; STACY MEISNER, ESQ., JANE DOE, N.P.; RICARDO; and MAX BAUMBACH, ESQ.
Case 1:23-cv-07829-RPK-RML
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
March 14, 2025
Document 32, PageID #: 272-280
23-CV-7829 (RPK) (RML)
RACHEL P. KOVNER, United States District Judge:
Pro se plaintiff Jason Simmons, an inmate at Otis Bantum Correctional Center, filed this lawsuit under
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this suit on October 19, 2023. See Compl. His complaint alleges several incidents of mistreatment while incarcerated at a correctional facility on Rikers Island. See generally Compl. Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongly diagnosed with a psychiatric condition and prescribed inappropriate medications, id. at 5-7, 19-22 (ECF pagination), denied access to Muslim and Christian services and not given a Bible as requested, id. at 16-17, 25-27, deprived of a blanket for a night, id. at 12, locked in his cell for days without a working toilet or sink, id. at 23-25, and not given any materials from the law library, id. at 8. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants conspired to coerce him into confessing a double murder. Id. at 18. He asserts that, when his fitness for trial was being evaluated, he was not given an opportunity to consult with his attorney without psychologists present, was not shown an allegedly inculpatory video, and was questioned by psychologists about how he would defend himself. Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff seeks damages under
On April 10, 2024, the City Defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them, arguing that (1) plaintiff failed to plead personal involvement on the part of the Commissioner and the Warden; (2) plaintiff‘s conspiracy claims were too vague and conclusory to state a plausible claim; and (3) the New York City Department of Corrections and New York City Police Department are non-suable entities. See Mot. to Dismiss.
Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss and filed a motion to join the City of New York, Allison John MHP, and Dr. Suarez as defendants, stating that he had “improperly” named as
DISCUSSION
The City Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and plaintiff‘s motions for summary judgment, injunctive relief, and joinder are denied.
I. The City Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss
The City Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. To survive a motion to dismiss under
A. Conspiracy Claim
Plaintiff fails to allege facts supporting a conspiracy claim. To plausibly allege a
Plaintiff fails to allege a conspiracy with the requisite specificity. Plaintiff states that several defendants made an “agreement” to coerce him into confessing to a double murder, Compl. 18, but he does not identify “specific instances of misconduct” related to this conspiracy, Ciambriello, 292 F.3d at 325. Although plaintiff alleges that he was forced to meet with psychologists to determine his fitness for trial and that their questioning felt like “he was being prosecuted,” Compl. at 7-8, these assertions do not plausibly show a conspiracy by defendants to coerce plaintiff into confessing murder. Plaintiff provides only “the type of vague, conclusory, and general allegations that, standing alone, are routinely found lacking under Rule 12(b)(6).” Garland v. City of New York, 665 F. Supp. 3d 295, 311 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) (citation omitted) (dismissing conspiracy claim when plaintiffs failed to “proffer any nonconclusory facts regarding the nature of the conspiracy, [d]efendants’ membership in the conspiracy, or the overt steps taken by any of the defendants in furtherance of that conspiracy“).
B. Remaining Claims Against the Commissioner and Warden
Plaintiff‘s remaining claims against the Commissioner and Warden are dismissed for failure to plead personal involvement. “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . [Section] 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official‘s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; see Spavone v. N.Y. State Dep‘t of Corr. Servs., 719 F.3d 127, 135 (2d Cir. 2013) (“It is well settled in this Circuit that personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under [Section] 1983.“).
C. Claims Against New York City Police Department and Department of Corrections
Plaintiff‘s claims against the New York City Police Department and Department of Corrections are dismissed because they are non-suable entities. Under New York law, “[a]ll actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency.” Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting N.Y.C. Charter § 396). The New York City Police Department and the Department of Corrections are therefore non-suable entities. See ibid. (“[T]he NYPD is a non-suable agency of the City.“); Best v. Merchant, No. 21-CV-779 (GHW), 2022 WL 17551935, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2022) (“[T]he DOC is a non-suable entity.“).
II. Plaintiff‘s Motions
Plaintiff‘s motions for summary judgment and a permanent injunction are denied as premature. Plaintiff‘s motion for joinder is denied without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint setting forth the facts supporting claims against the proposed additional defendants.
Plaintiff‘s motion for summary judgment is denied as premature. “While
Because defendants have not filed an answer or received a reasonable opportunity to complete discovery, plaintiff‘s motion for summary judgment is premature. To the extent any claims proceed in this case, plaintiff may re-file a summary judgment motion after the conclusion of discovery. See Sanchez v. Nassau County, No. 17-CV-7335 (JFB) (AKT), 2019 WL 1253283, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019) (“[P]re-discovery summary judgment is the exception rather than the rule and will be granted ‘only in the clearest of cases.‘” (quoting Wells Fargo Bank Nw., N.A. v. Taca Int‘l Airlines, S.A., 247 F. Supp. 2d 352, 359-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2002))).
Plaintiff‘s motions for a permanent injunction are denied without prejudice to renewal if plaintiff prevails on the merits of his claims. “To prevail on a motion for a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must both succeed on the merits and demonstrate the absence of an adequate remedy at law and irreparable harm if the relief is not granted.” Davis v. Shah, 821 F.3d 231, 243 (2d Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). There has not yet been any adjudication of the merits of plaintiff‘s claims. Indeed, as explained above, no discovery has occurred, and defendants have not yet filed an answer. Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to a permanent injunction at this stage.
Plaintiff‘s motion for joinder is also denied. Under
Plaintiff‘s motion to join individual defendants “Allison Johnson MHP” and “Dr. Suarez,” Mot. for Joinder 2, is denied without prejudice to renewal. When a plaintiff seeks to “assert new claims against those whom the [p]laintiff seeks to join as defendants,” the plaintiff must either “attach a proposed amended complaint” or “adequately explain the basis for, and nature of, the proposed amendment.” Brown v. Chappius, No. 13-CV-105, 2014 WL 1795015, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. May 6, 2014); see also Deveer v. Gov‘t Emps. Ins. Co., No. 07-CV-4437 (JS) (AKT), 2008 WL 4443260, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2008). Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or explained the nature of his proposed claims against Allison Johnson and Dr. Suarez, such as their role in causing the alleged constitutional violations. The Court therefore cannot assess whether joinder would be proper. Plaintiff may refile a motion to join these defendants if he also files an amended complaint that sets forth his claims against these defendants.
Similarly, plaintiff‘s request to join the City of New York as a defendant is denied without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint that specifies the basis for holding the City liable. Courts considering requests to join additional defendants typically consider whether the proposed joinder would be futile. See Deveer, 2008 WL 4443260 at *7. Plaintiff suggests in his motion for joinder that he is seeking to add the City of New York as the proper defendant for his claims against various individual defendants “as a matter of form because the stated individuals are its employees,” Mot. for Joinder 5, but municipalities such as New York City are “not vicariously liable under [Section] 1983 for their employees’ actions.” Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011). Instead, they can be held liable under
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denies without prejudice plaintiff‘s motions for summary judgment, injunctive relief, and joinder. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty days of this order. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within thirty days, judgment shall be entered dismissing all claims against the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections, Warden of Rikers Facility, New York City Police Department, and New York City Department of Corrections. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Rachel Kovner
RACHEL P. KOVNER
United States District Judge
Dated: March 14, 2025
Brooklyn, New York