Villacreses v. The Department of Corrections City of New York

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------x
MARCOS VILLACRESES,
Plaintiff, 	MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
26-CV-00035 (OEM) (MMH)
-against-
THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------x
ORELIA E. MERCHANT, United States District Judge:
On January 5, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Marcos Villacreses (“Plaintiff”) filed this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (“Section 1983”) action against Defendant New York City Department of Correction (the
“DOC”). See generally Civil Rights Complaint, Dkt. 1 (the “Complaint” or “Compl.”). That same
day, Plaintiff additionally filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. See generally Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs, Dkt. 2 (the “IFP Motion”). Plaintiff’s IFP Motion is granted and, for the reasons stated
below, the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint
within 30 days of the date of this order.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is currently detained at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center (“OBCC”) on Rikers
Island. Plaintiff asserts that on June 26, 2025, while housed in the Eric M. Taylor Center
(“EMTC”) dormitories, he was attacked by other inmates. Compl. at 4. He claims that no
correction officer was present in the dormitory at the time of the attack and that he was sprayed
with mace by correction officers following the incident. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a
Case 1:26-cv-00035-OEM-MMH Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
broken finger, cuts and bruises to the face and body, physical pain, and back pain. Id. He seeks
monetary damages not to exceed $500,000. Id. at 5.
LEGAL STANDARD
When reviewing an action filed in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss a complaint sua
sponte if it determines that the suit “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 	A complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted where it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim is plausible ‘when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.’” 	Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2011)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Although all allegations contained in the
complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678. In reviewing a pro se complaint, the Court is mindful that a plaintiff’s pleadings “must be
held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see
Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (“Even after Twombly,” the Court “remain[s]
obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally.” (citations omitted)).
DISCUSSION
Section 1983 provides, in relevant part, that: “[e]very person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected,
any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.” 	42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Case 1:26-cv-00035-OEM-MMH Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Section 1983 “is not itself a source of substantive rights, but a method for vindicating federal rights
elsewhere conferred by those parts of the United States Constitution and federal statutes that it
describes.” Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979); see Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121,
127 (2d Cir. 2010). To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: “(1)
that the defendants deprived him of a right ‘secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States’; and (2) that they did so ‘under color of state law.’” Giordano v. City of New York, 274
F.3d 740, 750 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50
(1999)).
Here, Plaintiff does not assert claims against individual defendants but rather seeks “for
the Department of Corrections of New York City to be held accountable.” Compl. at 5. Plaintiff’s
claims against the DOC fail because it is a non-suable entity. The New York City Charter provides
that “[a]ll actions or 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, except where otherwise
provided by law.” N.Y.C. Charter § 396 (emphasis added); see Corrow v. Dep’t of Corr., 25-CV-
05953, 2025 WL 3216611, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2025) (dismissing for failure to state a
claim a Section 1983 claim brought by a pro se incarcerated plaintiff against the DOC); Simmons
v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr., 23-CV-7829, 2025 WL 821682, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2025) (same).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as to the DOC for failing to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). No summons shall issue as to
this Defendant. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of
the entry of this order to file an amended complaint. See Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 596-97
(2d Cir. 2000).
Case 1:26-cv-00035-OEM-MMH Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff must identify each legal claim
and set forth a short, plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim. Plaintiff should
name as proper Defendants those individuals who had some personal involvement in the actions
he alleges and provide the dates and locations for each relevant event. Even if Plaintiff does not
know the names of the individuals, he may identify each of them as John Doe or Jane Doe. To the
best of his ability, Plaintiff must describe each individual and the role they played in the alleged
deprivation of his rights. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint completely replaces the
Complaint; therefore, all claims Plaintiff wishes to pursue must be in the amended complaint. The
amended complaint must be captioned “Amended Complaint” and include docket number 26-CV-
00035 (OEM) (MMH). For free, confidential, limited-scope legal assistance, Plaintiff may wish
to contact the City Bar Justice Center’s Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project in Brooklyn by
calling (212) 382-4729 or online at https://www.citybarjusticecenter.org/projects/federal-pro-se-
legal-assistance-project. The Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project is not a part of, or affiliated
with, the Court.
Any amended complaint that Plaintiff elects to file will be reviewed for sufficiency. No
summons shall issue at this time, and all further proceedings shall be stayed. If Plaintiff fails to
file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of the entry of this order, judgment shall be
entered.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken
in good faith and, therefore, denies in forma pauperis status for the purpose of any appeal.
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
Case 1:26-cv-00035-OEM-MMH Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff and to
note the mailing on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
/s/
ORELIA E. MERCHANT
United States District Judge
February 10, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-cv-00035-OEM-MMH Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>