Kenneth G. Soberanis v. Jaryn A. Spellman, et al.

Summary

This Report-Recommendation and Order addresses the initial review of Kenneth G. Soberanis’s pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. The complaint alleges excessive force by Rome police officers and failure to protect by a corrections officer after an inmate assault at the Oneida County Correctional Facility. The court recommends allowing the individual-capacity excessive-force claims against Jaryn A. Spellman and an unidentified Jane Doe officer to proceed, while concluding that the failure-to-protect claim against Hunter Corcoran is insufficiently pleaded.

Holdings

1. The allegations that Spellman and Jane Doe used tasers without an apparent need to subdue Soberanis, causing injury, plausibly stated Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims sufficient to survive initial screening.
2. The complaint did not plausibly allege that Corcoran violated Soberanis's Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to protect him from an inmate assault, but dismissal without prejudice and leave to amend were recommended.
3. The complaint did not plausibly allege a deliberate-medical-indifference claim because it did not identify a named defendant personally involved in Soberanis's medical treatment, but dismissal without prejudice and leave to amend were recommended.
4. The complaint did not plausibly allege official-capacity claims because it did not plead that a City of Rome or Oneida County policy, custom, practice, failure to train, or policymaker decision caused the alleged constitutional violations; dismissal without prejudice and leave to amend were recommended.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated individual-capacity Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims against Spellman and Jane Doe.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated a Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Corcoran.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly stated a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-medical-indifference claim.
4. Whether the allegations stated official-capacity claims under Monell v. Department of Social Services.
5. Whether the pro se plaintiff should receive leave to amend claims dismissed at screening.

Disposition

other