Opinion
21 Civ. 704 (LGS)
08-13-2021
JIMMY FANFAN, Plaintiff, v. DR. DANIEL KAUFMAN, Defendant.
ORDER
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. AUGUST 9, 2021 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO ANSWER
WHEREAS, the Court granted Plaintiff's oral application to file, by May 31, 2021, an amended complaint alleging any additional facts as to Defendants Joaquin Y. and Cheryl Ancrum and attaching his relevant medical records. Dkt. No. 15.
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2021, the Court issued an Order stating that Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint and directing Dr. Daniel Kaufman to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint by August 30, 2021. Dkt. No. 17.
WHEREAS, the Court subsequently received by mail Plaintiff's May 18, 2021, letter supplement to the Complaint, which is attached as Exhibit A and construed together with the Complaint as the Amended Complaint. See Brooks v. Westchester Cnty. Jail, No. 19 Civ. 10901, 2019 WL 6735607, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2019) (construing a complaint and amended complaint together). It is hereby
ORDERED that, the deadline to answer the operative complaint -- now the Amended Complaint -- is ADJOURNED sine die and, for the reasons stated below, will be rescheduled once the U.S. Marshal's Services has effected service of the Amended Complaint on both Dr. Kaufman and Defendant Joaquin Y.
II. BIVENS CLAIMS
WHEREAS, 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 U.S.C. § 1915(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 Harnage v. Lightner, 916 F.3d 138, 140 n.1 (2d Cir. 2019).
WHEREAS, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims that they suggest. Costabile v. N.Y.C. Health and Hosp. Corp., 951 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2020); see also Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 477 (2d Cir. 2006) (“There are many cases in which we have said that a pro se litigant is entitled to special solicitude; that a pro se litigant's submissions must be construed liberally; and that such submissions be read to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). But this “special solicitude” in pro se cases, Triestman, 470 F.3d at 477, 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.
WHEREAS, 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 complaint pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. at 556. 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).
WHEREAS, because Plaintiff alleges that employees of the federal government violated his constitutional rights, his claims are construed as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of FBI, 403 U.S. 388, 389-90 (1971) (considering whether a complaint stated a federal cause of action under the Fourth Amendment for damages, where the complaint alleged agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, acting under color of federal law, made a warrantless entry); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675-76 (“[Bivens] is the federal analog to suits brought against state officials under [] 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”) (internal citation omitted).
WHEREAS, the Amended Complaint purports to allege Bivens claims against Robert Beaudoin, Cheryl Ancrum and Joaquin Y. See Exhibit A.
WHEREAS, to state a claim for relief under Bivens, a plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly show that: (1) the challenged action was attributable to an officer acting under color of federal law, and (2) such conduct deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution. See Thomas v. Ashcroft, 470 F.3d 491, 496 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Bivens, 403 U.S. at 389); accord Dubois v. City of White Plains, 16 Civ. 07771, 2018 WL 6025868, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2018).
WHEREAS, Bivens relief is available only against federal officials who are personally liable for the alleged constitutional violations. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S.Ct. 1843, 1860 (2017); Turkmen v. Hasty, 789 F.3d 218, 233 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77). A plaintiff must allege facts showing the defendants' direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Spavone v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Serv., 719 F.3d 127, 135 (2d Cir. 2013) (“It is well settled in this Circuit that personal involvement of defendants in [the] alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Nguedi v. Caulfield, 813 Fed.Appx. 1, 3 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (affirming dismissal of claims brought against a former police commissioner for failure to allege personal involvement). “[A] plaintiff must plead and prove the elements of the underlying constitutional violation directly against [each defendant].” Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609, 620 (2d Cir. 2020).
WHEREAS, the Eighth Amendment protects federal pretrial detainees from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs. See Charles v. Orange Cnty., 925 F.3d 73, 85 (2d Cir. 2019). To state a claim for inadequate medical care, a plaintiff must plead facts showing that (1) the deprivation of medical care is objectively “sufficiently serious” in light of a medical condition “that may produce death, degeneration, or extreme pain”; and (2) the defendant-official “knew . . . or should have known that failing to provide the omitted medical treatment would pose a substantial risk to detainee's health.” Id. at 86-87.
WHEREAS, the Amended Complaint states a Bivens claim against Joaquin Y. The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff made numerous complaints to Joaquin Y. about his jaw injury and that despite Plaintiff's requests and pain, Joaquin Y. did not call a doctor. The Amended Complaint does not allege specific facts sufficient to support Bivens claims against Cheryl Ancrum or Robert Beaudoin. It is hereby
ORDERED that any claims against Cheryl Ancrum or Robert Beaudoin are DISMISSED.
III. VALENTIN ORDER
WHEREAS, under Valentin v. Dinkins, a pro se litigant is entitled to assistance from the district court in identifying a defendant. 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997); accord Genao v. City of New York, No. 20 Civ. 8721, 2020 WL 7360650, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2020).
WHEREAS, in the Complaint and Amended Complaint, Plaintiff supplies sufficient information to permit the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York to identify Joaquin Y. See Exhibit A. It is hereby
ORDERED that, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who is the attorney for and agent of the BOP, shall ascertain the service address for Joaquin Y., and provide this information to Plaintiff and the Court within sixty days of the date of this Order. Thereafter, the Court will issue an order directing the Clerk of Court to complete a USM-285 form with the address for Joaquin Y. and deliver all documents necessary to effect service on Joaquin Y. to the U.S. Marshals Service.
IV. UPDATED ADDRESS
WHEREAS, the Court received by mail Plaintiff's August 2, 2021, letter, attached as Exhibit B. The August 2, 2021, letter states that Plaintiff is moving to the Metropolitan Detention Center and that his new address is as follows:
Jimmy FanFan (#90863-053)
Metropolitan Detention Center
80 29th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11232
V. CONCLUSION
All claims against Robert Beaudouin and Cheryl Ancrum are DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order and the Amended Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 2 and Exhibit A) to the Civil Division of the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York at 86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor, New York, New York 10007.
The Clerk of Court is also respectfully directed to update Plaintiff's address on the docket and to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff and to Dr. Daniel Kaufman, at the following address:
Discreet Plastic Surgery;
1599 East 15th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11230.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a non-frivolous issue); accord United States v. Kosic, 944 F.3d 448, 449 (2d Cir. 2019).