Dawson v. City of New York
Dawson v. City of New York
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ence eeee □□ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ LOREN DAWSON, : : ORDER GRANTING MOTION Plaintiff, : TO DISMISS -against- : : 22 Civ. 6406 (AKH) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK : CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, : CORRECTION OFFICERS “JOHN DOE(s)”, individually and in their Official Capacity, : Defendants. wenn cee □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ OX ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: Plaintiff Loren Dawson (“Plaintiff’) brings this action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983against The City of New York, New York City Department of Correction, and Correction Officers “John Doe(s)”, individually and in their official capacity, alleging deliberate indifference to Mr. Dawson’s medical needs and violation of his substantive due process rights. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Defendant The City of New York, The City Of New York s/h/a New York City Department of Correction (hereinafter “the City”) moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(6)(6). For the reasons discussed below, the City’s motion is granted, The Complaint alleges that on or about June 5, 2020, while in custody at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center at Rikers Island, Dawson awoke with a swollen left gland, left ear pain, swelling and itching, a sore throat, and impaired hearing. Compl. 4 9. He had been released from solitary confinement (the “box”) the day prior. /d. Dawson reported his symptoms to “sick call” on June 5, 2020, and was prescribed the antibiotic Neomycin, which did not provide relief. Jd J10. Dawson claims that despite multiple pleas for medical attention, he
did not see an ENT specialist at Rikers Island, but instead saw a neurologist in July 2020, who referred him to an ENT specialist at Bellevue Hospital Center on an expedited basis. fd. § 11. He was taken to see the ENT specialist on July 28, 2020, seven weeks after his initial complaint, where he was prescribed Ciprodex, a combination antibiotic and corticosteroid. ff] 12-13. Dawson was scheduled for a follow-up visit at Bellevue on August 11, 2020, but did not have that visit until August 18, 2020. Jd. 13-14. He claims that because of the multiple delays in treatment as well as the seven weeks that passed before his first visit with the ENT specialist, he experienced recurring ear infections, difficulty sleeping, bleeding from his ear, pain, swelling, itching, permanent hearing loss, redness, rash, tinnitus, and other injuries. Jd 414. Dawson continued to receive treatment at Bellevue through September 18, 2020, and was released from Rikers Island on February 8, 2021. 9 15-16. Dawson filed this suit, alleging that Defendants, by refusing to provide adequate and timely medical treatment, exhibited deliberate indifference to his medical needs and deprived him of substantive due process rights. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court can dismiss a claim ifa party fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When considering a motion to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12, the Court must “accept{] all of the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draw[] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” See Katz v. Donna Karan Co. Store, L.L.C.,
872 F.3d 114, 118(2d Cir. 2017). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires that a complaint give each individual defendant ‘fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the ground upon which it rests.”” Canosa v. Ziff,
2019 WL 498865, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2019) (citing Afwahene v. City of Hartford,
10 Fed. App'x 33, 34(2d Cir. 2001)). “Where a complaint lumps all the defendants together in each claim and provides no factual basis to distinguish their conduct, it
fails to satisfy this minimum standard.” Jd. (citation omitted). In such a case, “the district court has the power, on motion or sua sponte, to dismiss the complaint or to strike such parts as are redundant or immaterial.” Simmons v. Abruzzo,
49 F.3d 83, 86(2d Cir. 1995). Additionally, it is well-established that the “personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.” See Hafer vy, Melo,
502 U.S. 21, 25(1991). Here, the Complaint fails to identify any correction officers or medical providers by name, description, or otherwise. The Complaint simply names an unspecified number of “John Doe” correction officers. Moreover, it is impossible for me to ascertain from the Complaint whether there was personal involvement on the part of any individual defendant in any alleged deprivation of Dawson’s constitutional rights. See Gaston v. Coughlin,
249 F.3d 156, 164(2d Cir. 2001) (“Proof of an individual defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged wrong is, of course, a prerequisite to his liability on a claim for damages under § 1983.”); Roundtree v. City of New York,
2018 WL 1586473, at *6 (S.D.N-Y. Mar. 28, 2018) (dismissing claims against correction officers, holding that “a plaintiff must prove that [monmedical] prison personnel intentionally delayed access to medical care when the inmate was in extreme pain and has made his medical problems known to the attendant prison personnel or that the inmate suffered a complete denial of medical treatment’) (internal citations omitted). To the extent that Dawson has asserted claims against the New York City Department of Correction, that agency is a non-suable entity. See N.Y. City Charter Ch. 17 § 396 (“[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 agency, except where otherwise provided by law”); see also Santos v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr,,
2010 WL 1142066, at *11
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010). Accordingly, Dawson’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction are dismissed with prejudice. For the reasons identified above, the City’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted. The Clerk of Court shall terminate the open motion at ECF No. 14. I grant Plaintiff leave to replead against the City of New York and individual correction officers by October 19, 2023. Failing such motion, the Clerk shall grant judgment to Defendants and close the case. SO ORDERED. lh. z baa ° Dated: September 27, 2023 New York, New York ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown