Corrow v. Dept of Corrections et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------x
THOMAS CORROW, 	MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
25-CV-05953 (NRM) (LGD)
Plaintiff,
-against-
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CAPTAIN
DONNELLI # 1278; C/O GONZALEZ,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------x
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
Pro se Plaintiff Thomas Corrow, who is currently detained at the Nassau
County Correctional Center, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Plaintiff’s
request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) is granted. For the reasons stated below,
Plaintiff’s claim against the New York City Department of Correction (“DOC”) is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s
claim against Captain Donnelli will proceed, and the claim against Correctional
Officer Gonzalez will proceed once his full name is identified.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff asserts that on July 22, 2025, while inside a bathroom at the EMTC
Center at Rikers Island at approximately 11:15 am, Captain Donnelli cut down white
sheets that surrounded the toilet that Plaintiff was using and grabbed Plaintiff’s arm.
ECF No. 1 at 4. 	Plaintiff reported the incident, and the next day, Plaintiff alleges
Case 2:25-cv-05953-NRM-LGD Document 7 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
that Captain Donnelli and two unnamed correctional officers cuffed Plaintiff, brought
him to a vacant cell, and assaulted him. 	Id. at 6. 	He alleges that he suffered two
seizures as a result. Plaintiff claims that officers lied to the mental health unit and
tried to place him on suicide watch. 	Id. at 7. 	When he refused, Officer Gonzalez
allegedly choked and beat him. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A complaint must 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 must be mindful that the plaintiff’s pleadings should 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 also Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that
even after Twombly, courts “remain obligated to construe a pro se complaint
liberally”).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must review any “complaint in a civil action
in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee
of a governmental entity” and must “identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
Case 2:25-cv-05953-NRM-LGD Document 7 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint . . . is frivolous, malicious,
or 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. § 1915A.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Plaintiff’s Claims Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff brings his claims under Section 1983, which 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. 	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 § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 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)).
A. Plaintiff’s Claims against the New York City Department of
Correction
Case 2:25-cv-05953-NRM-LGD Document 7 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Section 396 of the New York City Charter provides that “[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, except where
otherwise provided by law.” 	N.Y. City Charter § 396. 	This provision has been
construed to mean that plaintiffs must sue the City of New York where they allege
their rights have been violated by New York City departments and agencies, such as
the New York City Police Department. Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93
n.19 (2d Cir. 2007); Morales v. Doe, No. 25-CV-4170, 2025 WL 2106598, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2025) (noting that DOC is not a suable entity). 	Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s claim against the DOC is dismissed, as the only entity that may be sued
for the agency’s conduct is the City of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff’s claim for the alleged use of excessive force by Captain Donnelli will
proceed. Plaintiff’s claim for the alleged use of excessive force by Correctional Officer
Gonzalez will proceed once his full name is identified.
CONCLUSION
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim against the New York City Department of
Correction is dismissed. No summons shall issue as to this Defendant, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A; and it is further;
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Captain Donnelli, # 1278, alleged to
be a correctional officer employed at Rikers Island, with an address provided by
Plaintiff of 10-10 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst 11370, shall proceed. The Clerk of
Court shall issue a summons, and the United States Marshals Service is directed to
Case 2:25-cv-05953-NRM-LGD Document 7 Filed 11/17/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
serve 	the 	summons, 	complaint, 	and 	this 	Order 	on 	Captain 	Donnelli, 	without
prepayment of fees; and it is further;
ORDERED that in accordance with Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d. Cir.
1997) (per curiam), the Court hereby requests the Corporation Counsel of the City of
New York to ascertain the full name of Correctional Officer Gonzalez, who allegedly
physically assaulted Plaintiff in July 2025, at the EMTC on Rikers Island. 	The
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York is to provide the full name of
Correctional Officer Gonzalez and also provide the address where this individual can
currently be served; the Corporation Counsel need not undertake to defend or
indemnify this individual at this juncture, and it is further;
ORDERED that the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York is hereby
requested to produce the information specified above regarding the identity of the
above-named individual defendant and the address where he can be served to the
Court within forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order; once he has been
identified, Plaintiff’s complaint shall be deemed amended to reflect the full name of
this individual as a defendant, a summons shall issue for the defendant, and the
Court shall direct service on this defendant, and it is further;
ORDERED that this action is referred to Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst for
pretrial proceedings.
ORDERED that a copy of this Order and the Complaint shall be mailed to the
Corporation Counsel, Special Federal Litigation Division, and a copy of this Order to
Plaintiff.
Case 2:25-cv-05953-NRM-LGD Document 7 Filed 11/17/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
The Court certifies pursuant to 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. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–
45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nina R. Morrison
NINA R. MORRISON
United States District Judge
Dated: 	November 17, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
Case 2:25-cv-05953-NRM-LGD Document 7 Filed 11/17/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>