Palmer v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 1, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-05333·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIAN SHABAZZ PALMER, Plaintiff, 22-CV-5333 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND CITY OF NEW YORK; NYC DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently detained in the Anna M. Kross Center (AMKC) on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action alleging that Defendants violated his rights. The Court construes the complaint as asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Named as Defendants are the City of New York and the New York City Department of Correction (DOC). By order dated July 6, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, 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. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). BACKGROUND

Plaintiff states that the events giving rise to his claims occurred on “03-22-22, 05-18-22, 05-05-22 and etc.” (ECF 2, at 4.) The complaint is confusing and much of it is devoted to describing incidents that occurred to other Rikers inmates.2 The following allegations are taken from the complaint and are limited to those incidents and events that directly involve Plaintiff. On May 5, 2022, the mailroom withheld Plaintiff’s mail that Plaintiff believes will “exonerate” him. (Id. at 4.) Although it is unclear whether Plaintiff is referring to the same incident, he accuses unspecified individuals of “maliciously intentional/negligently witholding priviledge mail and mail with evidence that could’ve exonerate him from [his] pending case.” (Id. at 5.) On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff put a “letter with a motion” in the mail and it “sat in the Bubble for 6 days and more” even though Plaintiff alerted jail officials. (Id. at 4.) He alleges that

officers follow an “unwritten policy since 03-22-22 on the first test.” (Id.) Plaintiff further

2 For example, Plaintiff states, Mr. Andre Antrobus warned us for months it happen too him 4 times in the past that D-O-C- employees from captains, officers and staff threaten him by orders of the D.A. to deny mail, phone, law library and etc! Also taken evidence from him that we witness 25 D-O-C employees threaten him also taken his evidence for 4 months that would exonerate him from false charges which is a due process violation!! (ECF 2, at 4) (all errors in original throughout). alleges that his mail “got food and water stains on it,” (id. at 4), and he accuses unspecified individuals of “destroying the contents” of his mail by “wetting it,” (id. at 5.) Plaintiff seeks money damages. DISCUSSION The Court construes Plaintiff’s allegations as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

that Defendants violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts and tampered with his mail. To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). A. Claims against the New York City Department of Correction Plaintiff’s claims against the DOC must be dismissed because an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued. N.Y. City Charter ch. 17, § 396 (“[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.”); Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Emerson v. City

of New York, 740 F. Supp. 2d 385, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“[A] plaintiff is generally prohibited from suing a municipal agency.”). The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against DOC for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). B. Constitutional claims The Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants interfered with his mail as arising under the First Amendment. A prisoner’s First Amendment rights encompass the right to “adequate, effective and meaningful” access to the courts and to the free flow of incoming and outgoing mail. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977); Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003). “[C]ourts have consistently afforded greater protection to legal mail than to non- legal mail, as well as greater protection to outgoing mail than to incoming mail.” Davis, 320 F.3d at 351 (citing Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989)). Plaintiff’ s allegations concerning his legal mail implicate both an access-to-courts claim and a general mail tampering claim.

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

Palmer v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Palmer v. City of New York (Palmer v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Bounds v. Smith
430 U.S. 817 (Supreme Court, 1977)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Thornburgh v. Abbott
490 U.S. 401 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Lewis v. Casey
518 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1996)
Christopher v. Harbury
536 U.S. 403 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Davis v. Goord
320 F.3d 346 (Second Circuit, 2003)
Bourdon v. Loughren
386 F.3d 88 (Second Circuit, 2004)
Segal v. City Of New York
459 F.3d 207 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Jenkins v. City Of New York
478 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Jermosen v. Coughlin
877 F. Supp. 864 (S.D. New York, 1995)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Collins v. Goord
581 F. Supp. 2d 563 (S.D. New York, 2008)