Carter v. 1 John Doe [Black Male]

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 21, 2025·No. 1:24-cv-06182·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAVID CARTER, Plaintiff, 24-CV-6182 (LTS) -against- ORDER 1# JOHN DOE [BLACK MALE], ET AL. Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Marcy Correctional Facility (“Marcy”), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On July 31, 2024, he filed this complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that in 2021, during his incarceration at Green Haven Correctional Facility (“Green Haven”), correction officers interfered with his legal mail. (ECF 1.) By order dated December 16, 2024, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Plaintiff is barred, under the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), from filing any new action IFP while a prisoner, in the absence of a showing that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury, (ECF 16) (citing Carter v. New York City John Doe Corr. Officer, No. 16-CV-3466 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2016)). In its order, the Court held that Plaintiff’s complaint – alleging that Green Haven correction officers interfered with his legal mail at Green Haven in 2021 – did not suggest that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the complaint while incarcerated at Marcy. (ECF 16.) On January 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and a motion for reconsideration. (ECF 19, 20.) By order dated March 28, 2025, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration: Plaintiff does not argue that he does not have three strikes for purposes of Section 1915(g). He does, however, attempt to show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The imminent danger exception “allows a three-strikes litigant to proceed IFP only when there exists an adequate nexus between the claims he seeks to pursue and the imminent danger he alleges.” Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 298 (2d Cir. 2002). In determining whether a litigant has shown such a nexus, courts consider: “(1) whether the imminent danger of serious physical injury that [the] . . . litigant alleges is fairly traceable to unlawful conduct asserted in the complaint and (2) whether a favorable judicial outcome would redress that injury.” Id. at 298-99.

Here, Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that four years ago, corrections officers at Green Haven interfered with his legal mail. (ECF 1.) In the motion seeking emergency injunctive relief, Plaintiff asserts that corrections officers and other prisoners are threatening him with physical harm. (ECF 25 at 1.) While these are serious allegations, they are wholly unrelated to Plaintiff’s claims in this suit regarding involving the alleged interference with legal mail at Green Haven in 2021. There are no Marcy employees named as Defendants in this action. A favorable judicial outcome on Plaintiff’s claims for damages as a result of the alleged interference with his legal mail would not redress any injury from threats to Plaintiff four years later at a different facility. He has thus failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked any controlling decisions or factual matters with respect to the dismissed action under Section 1915(g). (ECF 26 at 4.) By mandate issued July 16, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the action: We conclude that the district court correctly ruled that Appellant was subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s three-strikes bar and that his complaint did not allege that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. On remand, however, the district court should permit Appellant to amend his complaint to address the imminent danger exception and the required nexus between the complaint’s claims and the alleged imminent danger. See Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170–71 (2d Cir. 2010); Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 298 (2d Cir. 2009). (ECF 29.) The Court directs the Clerk of Court to vacate the order of dismissal and judgment (ECF 16, 17) and to reopen this action. The Court grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint to “address the imminent danger exception and the required nexus between the complaint’s claims and the alleged imminent danger.”1 (ECF 29.) An amended complaint form is attached. 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 IFP 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 nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: July 21, 2025 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

1 This Court is not a proper venue for Plaintiff’s allegations arising from events occurring at Marcy, in Oneida County, New York, located within the Northern District of New York. 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Instead of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff could withdraw this action and file a new complaint in the Northern District. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

(In the space above enter the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s).) AMENDED COMPLAINT -against- under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Jury Trial: O Yes oO No (check one) Ci CD

(dn the space above enter the full name(s) of the defendant(s). Ifyou cannot fit the names of all of the defendants in the space provided, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed in the above caption must be identical to those contained in Part I. Addresses should not be included here.) I. Parties in this complaint: A. List your name, identification number, and the name and address of your current place of confinement. Do the same for any additional plaintiffs named. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary. Plaintiff’ s Name WH eee Current Institution, Address eee

B. List all defendants’ names, positions, places of employment, and the address where each defendant may be served. Make sure that the defendant(s) listed below are identical to those contained in the above caption. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary.

Defendant No. 1 Name —s—aiesesesa (aes Where Currently Employed eee Address ee

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carter v. 1 John Doe [Black Male], (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Carter v. 1 John Doe [Black Male] (Carter v. 1 John Doe [Black Male]) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pettus v. Morgenthau
554 F.3d 293 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Chavis v. Chappius
618 F.3d 162 (Second Circuit, 2010)