Vazquez v. City of N.Y.

JUAN M. VAZQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK; CYNTHIA BRANN, Commissioner, for the NYCDOC;DANA ROTH, Inspector General for the NYCDOC; DERRICK CEPHAS,Chairman for the Board of Correction; JOSEPH CAPUTO, Warden of RNDC;UNKNOWN CORT, Deputy Warden of RNDC; UNKNOWN FERRARAS,Deputy Warden of RNDC; UNKNOWN CORPORAN; UNKNOWN APONTE,Supervising Captain for RNDC; UNKNOWN USHER, Correction Officer for RNDC;UNKNOWN HERRERA, Correction Officer for RNDC; JEAN RENE, Warden for OBCC;JOSEPH GRIMA, Deputy Warden for OBCC; JOHN/JANE DOE, Deputy Warden of OBCC;UNKNOWN SMALLS, Supervising Officer for OBCC; UNKNOWN HICKS,Supervising Officer for OBCC; UNKNOWN HICKS, Correction Officer for OBCC;UNKNOWN ALEXANDER, Correction Officer for the ESU; JOHN DOE,Supervising Captain ESU; NEW YORK CITY HEALTH & HOSPITALS INC.;LAURA MELLO, Records Access Officer for the NYCDOC; JOHN MORLEY,Director of Health for the NYSDOCCS; KAY ARNOLD, Director Health for ACF;DAVID WILLIAMS, Supervising Physician for ACF; ARTHUR MENDOLA,Attorney for the Legal Aid Society; 18-B Panel Attorney for NYS;DANIEL RODGERS, Police Officer for the NYPD; SHIRA ARNOW,Assistant District Attorney for the County of New York; ANN E. SCHERZER,Supreme Judge for the State of New York; COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT;UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK; JOHN/JANE DOE,Director of Health for the NYCDOC; JOHN/JANE DOES, all those in active participation, Defendants.

21 Civ. 1573 (PAE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

May 17, 2021

OPINION & ORDER TO AMEND

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:

Plaintiff Juan M. Vazquez, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is currently incarcerated in Attica Correctional Facility. Vazquez filed this complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that defendants—including a wide variety of correctional officers, attorneys, judges, and the New York State court system—violated his constitutional rights. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Vazquez leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order.

I. Applicable Legal Standards

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 in forma pauperis 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).

Although 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 arguments that they suggest." Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation 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.

II. Background

In this complaint, styled as a class action, Vazquez names as defendants 31 individuals and entities, including the City of New York, New York City Health + Hospitals Corp. ("H+H"), officials and employees of the New York City Department of Correction ("DOC"), the New York City Board of Correction ("BOC"), the New York State Department of Correction and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, and the Unified Court System for the State of New York.¹

The claims arise from three main sets of events—incidents that occurred at Rikers Island, at Attica, and during Vazquez's state criminal proceedings. Vazquez entered DOC custody on September 17, 2017. Dkt. 2 ("Compl.") at 19.² He was transferred from the Manhattan Detention Complex to Rikers Island on January 26, 2018. Id. On January 9, 2020, Vazquez entered DOCCS custody. Id. Vazquez is "awaiting transfer to federal custody." Id. at 6. The following is a summary of Vazquez's allegations.

On December 18, 2018, while detained at the RNDC Vazquez "was given a Report of Notice of infraction for fighting and assault," after he was assaulted by another detainee named Williams several days earlier. Id. at 16-17. Vazquez never received a hearing on this report, and he could not file an "administrative hearing" or appeal because "the infraction was dismissed on the basis of self-defense." Id. On November 2, 2019, while detained at OBCC, Vazquez fought with a mentally ill detainee named Quiles. Id. at 17. Vazquez had a hearing, and he was "reprimanded." Id. Because defendants allegedly failed to provide Quiles with adequate mental health treatment, they failed to protect Vazquez and other detainees from Quiles. Id. On January 4, 2020, a violent detainee named Jeffrey attacked Vazquez. Id. at 17-18. A disciplinary report that falsely claimed that Vazquez had fought with Jeffrey was later dismissed because Vazquez was found to have acted in self-defense; he was again not provided with a hearing or appealprocess. Because Vazquez was at that point a "state-sentenced inmate," he "should have been kept separate from" pretrial detainees like Jeffrey. Id. at 18.

According to Vazquez, the assault by Jeffrey "may have been directly related to threats" that defendant Cruz, the RNDC Legal Coordinator, made to Vazquez because of grievances he filed and 311 calls he made about her. Id. at 19. Although Vazquez has 25 years of paralegal experience, Cruz fired him from his law library job. She also denied his request for "information" and for notarization, and denied him the minimum of two hours per day in the law library to which he was entitled under DOC regulations. Id. at 21-22. In addition, Cruz allegedly discriminated against Vazquez because he is Hispanic; deliberately mailed a letter to Vazquez's defense attorney to the wrong address, id. at 30; and was verbally abusive to Vazquez, groped him, and behaved in a "sexually derogatory" manner towards him, id. at 29. Defendant Usher observed these events and did nothing to intervene on Vazquez's behalf.³ Vazquez claims that after he was convicted, he was transferred to state custody in retaliation for filing complaints. Id. at 24; Dkt. 2-5 at 16.

Vazquez further claims that while in the custody of DOC and DOCCS, he has been denied adequate medical care. While in DOC custody, C.O. Alexander allegedly seized Vazquez's medically prescribed footwear; Vazquez was denied a proper mattress or extra bedding to accommodate his sciatica; a doctor told Vazquez that DOC considered surgery for his foot condition, "Halifax limited," to be elective, even though Vazquez was in great pain because of the foot condition; and his referrals to a podiatrist and a neurologist were never acted upon. Vazquez also alleges that DOC failed to send his complete medical history to DOCCS, and that to date he is still not receiving treatment for his medical conditions. Dkt. 2-6 at 26; Dkt. 2-7 at 1, 3. He further claims that DOCCS is failing to take adequate steps to protect him and other prisoners from COVID-19.

Vazquez also asserts that defendants Herrera and John/Jane Does stole his social security card and driver's license, violated his privacy, and used his personal information to open "fraudulent accounts" and incur "financial/legal liabilities" in his name. Compl. 2d at 46.

He further claims that the supervisory defendants had "active" or "constructive" knowledge of all these conditions and failed to remedy them. Id. at 49. His numerous complaints about these matters to government agencies, including the New York State Attorney General's Office, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Unified Court System for the State of New York, the New York City Department of Investigation, and the New York City Comptroller's Office, were not acted upon. See Dkt. 2-4 at 5-6, 10; Dkt. 2-9 at 23; Dkt. 2-11 at 34.

Finally, Vazquez asserts various claims arising out of his criminal case in the New York State Supreme Court against several judges (Scherzer, Carro, and Warhit), an assistant district attorney (Arnow), Vazquez's assigned defense attorneys (Mendola and Levy), a police officer(Rodgers), and a DOC Freedom of Information Law ("FOIL") officer (Mello) for conspiring to engage in "state sanctioned coercion, intimidation, and retaliation." Dkt. 2-9 at 23. Vazquez was originally represented by a LAS attorney, but his case was reassigned to an 18-b attorney after Vazquez complained about the LAS attorney. Vazquez claims that his attorneys were ineffective and committed legal malpractice, and that one retaliated against him by asking the...