Peterkin v. Suffolk County Correctional Dept. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jonathan Peterkin,
Plaintiff,
-v-
Suffolk County Correctional Department (Officers)
(Yaphank); Suffolk County Medical Staff (Yaphank),
Defendants.
2:25-cv-2382
(NJC) (ARL)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY, United States District Judge:
Before the Court is an Amended Complaint timely filed by Jonathan Peterkin, acting pro
se and while incarcerated at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility’s Riverhead location,
against the Suffolk County Correctional Dept. (Officers) (Yaphank) and Suffolk County Medical
Staff (Yaphank) (together, “Defendants”). (Am. Compl., ECF No. 13 at 3.) This Court
previously granted Peterkin’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (See IFP Mot., ECF
No. 6; Mem. & Order, ECF No. 9.)1 The Court has screened the Amended Complaint in
accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, and dismisses the Section 1983
deliberate indifference claims alleged in the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13) without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) for the reasons explained
below.
1 Despite having been already granted IFP status, Peterkin filed another IFP motion with his
Amended Complaint. (Second IFP Mot., ECF No. 14.) That motion is denied as it is moot.
Case 2:25-cv-02382-NJC-ARL Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2025, Peterkin filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section
1983”) against the Defendants claiming that, after Peterkin was involved in a fight while
detained at the Jail, an unspecified number of unnamed officers used excessive force against him
and that he received insufficient medical treatment. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Peterkin’s Complaint
was submitted on the Court’s form for civil rights violations and included a copy of a grievance
he had submitted concerning the challenged events. (Id. at 7.) By Memorandum and Order dated
August 28, 2025 (the “Mem. & Order”), the Court granted Peterkin’s IFP Motion and dismissed
the Complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii), 1915A(b)(1), for
failure to allege a plausible claim for relief. (Mem. & Order, ECF No. 9.)
Insofar as the Complaint had challenged the constitutionality of the unidentified
corrections officers’ alleged use of excessive force in tasing and pepper spraying Peterkin and
the adequacy of the medical treatment that followed, the Court explained: “[T]he Section 1983
claims fail because the Complaint has not sufficiently pled a cause of action against any
individual defendant, and, even if it had, the Complaint does not allege a plausible excessive
force or deliberate indifference claim.” (Id. at 7.) Insofar as Peterkin named Yaphank
“Corrections Officers” and “Medical Staff” as the defendants, the Court explained that the
allegations did not comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) because the Complaint “omitted important facts such as the
location within the Jail, the time of day, a description of each of the intended individual
defendants, and how many of the generally named “corrections officers” or “medical staff” were
involved.” (Id. at 6–8.) Nor did the Complaint allege whether Peterkin was detained in jail pre-
trial or post-conviction during the alleged events, which the Court explained was “critical to
determining the plausibility of his excessive force claims.” (Id. at 9.) And, Peterkin’s deliberate
Case 2:25-cv-02382-NJC-ARL Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
indifference claim, as pled, failed to satisfy the second, subjective prong under either the Eighth
Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment because the Complaint did “not allege any facts
suggesting intentional or reckless conduct that a defendant knew or should have known would
pose an excessive risk to his health or safety.” (Id. at 12.) The Court made clear that, “[w]ithout
additional allegations as to Defendants’ knowledge about Peterkin’s injured shoulder, Peterkin’s
belief that he required diagnostic imaging ... s insufficient.” (Id.) In granting Peterkin leave to
amend the Complaint, the Court instructed that:
Peterkin must include in any amended complaint the individuals who were
allegedly involved in the deprivation of his federal rights as defendant(s) in the
caption and in the statement of claim. If Peterkin does not know the name of a
defendant, he may refer to that individual as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” in both
the caption and the body of the amended complaint. Further, Peterkin is reminded
to review the Court’s guidance set forth above concerning the requirements to
allege facts supporting plausible excessive force and deliberate indifference
claims, including whether Peterkin was detained in the Jail pre-trial or post-
conviction when the alleged incident occurred.
(Id. at 14.) Further, the Court made clear that “that the amended complaint will
completely replace, not supplement, the prior complaint, so any facts or claims that
Peterkin wants to include from the prior complaint must be repeated in the amended
complaint.” (Id.)
I. The Amended Complaint
The Court granted Peterkin an extension of time to file an Amended Complaint from
September 27, 2025 through November 24, 2025. (See Elec. Order, dated Oct. 30, 2025.)
Peterkin timely filed an Amended Complaint on November 17, 2025. (See Am. Compl. ECF No.
13.)
Case 2:25-cv-02382-NJC-ARL Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
The Amended Complaint is brief and is comprised of a two-page, handwritten document
that does not include a caption or any other form for identifying the intended defendants.2 (Id. at
2.) Annexed to the Amended Complaint is a copy of a Notice of Claim with a caption that names
the same defendants as the original Complaint and a copy of an Inmate Grievance Form. (Id. at
3–4, 5.) In its entirety, the Amended Complaint alleges the following:
I was involved in a fight and when the correctional officers came it was about 2 to
3 John Doe correction officers along with 3 to 5 John Doe ESO officers, to break
it up. I stopped right away and complied. The officers tased me more than once,
the tear gas sprayed me more than once. I was taken to the medical unit and a
nurse Jane Doe was present. Due to being tased and sprayed I had difficulty
breathing and my vision was distorted for at least a half hour. I informed them
that I need serious medical attention like an outside doctor. The officers told me
to “shut the f**k up before they “f**k me up”. I’m a 51 year old man involved in
a fight with someone half my age. He started the fight swinging at me and I was
forced to defend myself. My shoulder has been in severe pain ever since. Two
weeks or more passed before I was called to medical for a sonogram x-ray which
didn’t show anything. I had to keep dropping slips to the medical unit because I
was moved to Riverhead Correctional Facility. I was told that no bones were
broken. But told the Doctor in Riverhead that I need “MRI” because something
must be torn or ripped in my shoulder and the doctors response was “its a process
here”. I had my fight 3/18/25 and was placed in the box (solitary confinement)
on 3/28/25 and I stayed in the box for 20 days in pain with no medical attention
whatsoever. I was told “take aspirin” to see if my shoulder got better but to no
avail. Its been 8 months since the fight without proper attention. I wake up in cold
sweats having reoccurring nightmares of being tased and pepper sprayed thinking
that the correctional officers are going to kill me because they threatened me
repeatedly. As to date I still havent received proper medical treatment. Filed
grievance stated that it had no merit. Enclosed is a copy of grievance. Im not
sentenced at this time. I’m a pretrial detainee.
2 The first page of this submission appears to be a cover page with a single paragraph:
Amended Complaint
Civil Docket For Case #: 2:25-cv-02382-NJC-ARL
Peterkin v. Suffolk County Correctional Dept. et al
Assigned to: Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay
Demand: $3,000,000.00
Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(ECF No. 13 at 1.)
Case 2:25-cv-02382-NJC-ARL Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
(ECF No. 13 at 2.)3 Although the Amended Complaint does not include a demand for relief, the
Notice of Claim annexed thereto seeks to recover a money judgment in the sum of $1 million.
(Id. at 4.)
LEGAL STANDARDS
I. Sufficiency of the Pleadings
Where an incarcerated plaintiff is proceeding IFP, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A instructs that “[t]he
court shall review . . . as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint [or amended complaint]
in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). It further instructs that the court:
shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint
[or amended complaint], if the complaint [or amended complaint]—(1) is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). At the pleading stage, the court must
assume the truth of “all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations” in the complaint.
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 124 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678–80 (2009)), aff’d, 569 U.S. 108 (2013).
This Court is required to construe pleadings “filed by pro se litigants liberally and
interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Hunter v. McMahon, 75 F.4th
62, 67 (2d Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted). “[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Ceara v. Deacon, 916 F.3d 208, 213 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007)) (quotation marks omitted).
3 Excerpts from the Amended Complaint have been reproduced here exactly as they appear in
the original. Errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar have not been corrected or noted.
Case 2:25-cv-02382-NJC-ARL Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Nevertheless, a complaint or amended complaint must plead sufficient 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 has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The plausibility standard requires “more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.; accord We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Conn. Off. of Early
Childhood Dev., 76 F.4th 130, 144 (2d Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2682 (2024).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements . . . are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79. While
“detailed factual allegations” are not required, “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’
or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Id. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The factual allegations of a complaint or amended complaint must be
sufficient to give the defendant “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
DISCUSSION
Though Peterkin’s Amended Complaint omits a caption, the Notice of Claim annexed
thereto and the Second IFP Application filed along with the Amended Complaint both include
captions that name the same defendants as the original Complaint. (See ECF Nos. 13 at 1, 3.)
Apart from Peterkin’s allegation that he is pretrial detainee (ECF No. 13 at 2), the Amended
Complaint does not sufficiently address the other deficiencies noted in the Mem. & Order for the
reasons that follow.
I. Federal Claims Brought Pursuant to Section 1983
The Amended Complaint, like the original Complaint, brings claims pursuant to Section
1983 (Id. at 1.) Given the Amended Complaint’s allegation that Peterkin was a pretrial detainee
Case 2:25-cv-02382-NJC-ARL Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
during the events at issue, his excessive force and deliberate indifference claims arise under the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Frost v. N.Y.C. Police Dep’t, 980 F.3d 231, 251–
52 (2d Cir. 2020) (pretrial detainees are protected “from the use of excessive force that amounts
to punishment” by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment); Swinton v. Livingston
Cnty, 2023 WL 2317838, at *2 (2d Cir. March 2, 2023) (summary order) (analyzing a pretrial
detainee’s denial of medical treatment claim under the Fourteenth Amendment standard).
However, the Amended Complaint, like the original Complaint, brings these claims
against “Suffolk County Correctional Dept. (Officers) (Yaphank)” and “Suffolk County Medical
Staff (Yaphank)” (Am. Compl. at 3), and has largely ignored the Court’s instruction to “allege
specific facts that would help identify the defendants and thereby allow defendants to prepare a
defense.” (Mem. & Order, at 7 (citing Regeda v. City of New York, 2012 WL 7157703, at *8
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2012) (noting that an amended complaint must either “identify each
[defendant] by name, or else identify them as the ‘John Doe defendants’ and provide sufficient
factual basis to allow the defendants to successfully identify the John Doe defendants and
prepare for a defense”), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 619567 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.
19, 2013) (add’l citation omitted)). Although the Amended Complaint alleges the date of the
incident—March 18, 2025—like the original Complaint, it “omit[s] important facts such as the
location within the Jail, the time of day” and “a description of each of the intended individual
defendants.” (Mem. & Order at 8; see also Am. Compl., in toto.)4
Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution and in light of Peterkin’s pro se status, consistent
with Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 75–76 (2d Cir. 1997) (per curiam), the Court directs the
4 Indeed, the only additional factual information concerning the intended defendants alleged in
the Amended Complaint is that “it was about 2 to 3 John Doe correction officers along with 3 to
5 John Doe ESO officers.” (Am Compl. at 1.)
Case 2:25-cv-02382-NJC-ARL Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Suffolk County Attorney to ascertain the full names and service addresses of the individuals
involved in the events alleged in the Amended Complaint. (See Am. Compl.) Accordingly, the
Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of the Amended Complaint together with this order on the
Suffolk County Attorney. The Suffolk County Attorney’s Office shall make best efforts to
ascertain the full names of the unidentified defendants and to provide their names and the
address(es) where such defendants can be served to the Court and to Peterkin within thirty (30)
days of the date that this Order is served upon it.
The Suffolk County Attorney need not undertake to defend or indemnify these individuals
at this juncture. This Order merely provides a means by which the Peterkin may name and properly
serve these defendants as instructed by the Second Circuit in Valentin. Once the information is
provided to the Court by the Suffolk County Attorney’s Office, Peterkin’s Amended Complaint
shall be deemed amended to reflect the full names of these defendants, a summons shall be issued
to each defendant, and the USMS shall effect service.
A. Excessive Force Claims
The Court previously found that the original Complaint’s allegation that Peterkin “was
tased and pepper sprayed even though he ‘stopped right away and complied’ when corrections
officers came to break up the fight, suggests that such claims would survive screening, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, had [the Complaint] asserted them against a proper defendant.” (Mem. &
Order at 9 (citing Compl. § IV; Am. Compl. at 2)). Accordingly, in an abundance of caution, the
Court declines to sua sponte dismiss Peterkin’s excessive force claims at this time.
B. Deliberate Indifference Claims
Although the Court afforded Peterkin an opportunity to properly allege his deliberate
indifference claims by including “additional allegations as to Defendants’ knowledge about
Peterkin’s injured shoulder,” (Mem. & Order, at 12), the Amended Complaint does not provide
Case 2:25-cv-02382-NJC-ARL Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
such additional factual allegations. (See Am. Compl.) Thus, as the Court already found with
respect to the original Complaint, “Peterkin’s belief that he required diagnostic imaging in the
form of an MRI by an outside provider or a different form of X-ray (Compl. § IV.A) is
insufficient” to state a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim concerning
Peterkin’s medical treatment. (Mem & Order at 12 (citing Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123
(2d Cir. 2011) (recognizing that “disagreement over the proper treatment does not create a
constitutional claim[,] [s]o long as the treatment given is adequate . . . .”); Collins v. Figura, No.
23-109, 2024 WL 1739084, at *1 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2024) (summary order) (same) (add’l citation
omitted)). Thus, Peterkin’s deliberate indifference claims are not plausible and are dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii).5
II. Leave to Amend
A pro se plaintiff should ordinarily be given the opportunity “to amend at least once
when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.”
Shomo v. Cty. of New York, 579 F.3d 176, 183 (2d Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). This Court already granted Peterkin leave to file the Amended Complaint in order to
allege plausible claims, his Amended Complaint does not address the deficiencies identified in
this Court’s Order dismissing the original Complaint. Accordingly, leave to further amend the
complaint is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court dismisses Peterkin’s Second IFP motion (ECF
No. 14) as moot and dismisses the Section 1983 deliberate indifference claims alleged in the
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13) without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1),
5 Dismissal of these claims without prejudice is appropriate in light of Peterkin’s pro se status.
Case 2:25-cv-02382-NJC-ARL Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Peterkin’s Section 1983 excessive force claims shall proceed and the Clerk
of the Court shall serve a copy of the Amended Complaint together with this Order on the
Suffolk County Attorney. The Suffolk County Attorney’s Office shall make best efforts to
ascertain the full names of the unidentified defendants and to provide their names and the
address(es) where such defendants can be served to the Court and to Peterkin within thirty
(30) days of the date that this Order is served upon it. Once the Suffolk County Attorney’s
Office provides this information to the Court, Peterkin’s Amended Complaint shall be deemed
amended to reflect the full names of these defendants, a summons shall be issued to each
defendant, and the USMS shall effect service on the defendant(s).
The Clerk of Court shall also serve a copy of this Order on Peterkin at his address of record
in an envelope marked “Legal Mail” and shall note such mailing on the docket.
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 any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
Dated: Central Islip, New York
January 6, 2026
/s/ Nusrat J. Choudhury
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02382-NJC-ARL Document 18 Filed 01/06/26 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>