Werner v. New York County, NYC

Background

Bradley A. Werner, Jr., who was incarcerated at Groveland Correctional Facility and proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named New York County, NYC; Mayor Eric Adams; the New York County District Attorney’s Office; District Attorney Alvin Bragg; Assistant District Attorney Myles Ashong; and Chief Investigator Michael Wigdor. The opinion refers to the last four as the “DA Defendants.”

Werner alleged that he was falsely arrested on March 27, 2023, unlawfully held on another inmate’s charge at Rikers Island, and assaulted nine times while at Rikers. He did not identify who assaulted him. He also referred to a false incident report, a not-guilty verdict on certain charges, a later indictment involving alleged entrapment and other unlawful procedures, and a conviction that he said was on appeal. He sought damages for 308 days of allegedly illegal incarceration and asked the court to overturn his sentence. He also requested appointment of a lawyer.

Court’s Analysis

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to review prisoner complaints against governmental entities and dismiss claims that are legally insufficient, frivolous, malicious, seek relief from immune defendants, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read generously but still must provide a short and plain statement of facts showing entitlement to relief.

Challenge to the conviction. The court held that a claim under Section 1983 cannot be used to obtain an order overturning a state conviction. That type of challenge must generally be brought through a federal petition challenging custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after available state remedies have been exhausted. Because Werner indicated that his conviction was on appeal, the court declined to treat his allegations as a Section 2254 petition.

Damages for imprisonment. The court dismissed Werner’s Section 1983 damages claims based on his allegedly wrongful conviction and imprisonment under the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. That rule prevents a damages claim when success would necessarily imply that an existing conviction or sentence is invalid, unless the conviction or sentence has already been overturned or otherwise invalidated. The court found that Werner’s wrongful-imprisonment claim would conflict with his conviction.

Assault allegations. The court explained that a prisoner may bring a failure-to-protect claim by alleging a sufficiently serious risk of harm and that an officer knew or should have known about the risk but acted with deliberate indifference. An excessive-force claim requires facts showing that the force was objectively unreasonable. In either type of claim, the plaintiff must allege each defendant’s direct and personal involvement.

The court found that Werner’s allegations did not make clear whether he was claiming excessive force, failure to protect, or any claim arising from the assaults. He provided almost no facts about the assaults and did not identify a defendant personally involved in them. Although he named Mayor Adams, he did not allege that the mayor was involved in events at Rikers Island.

Municipal liability. The court treated Werner’s claim against New York County as a claim against the City of New York. To state a Section 1983 claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must allege that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court found that Werner provided no facts suggesting that such a policy, custom, or practice contributed to the alleged assaults. It granted him leave to amend to name the City of New York and provide facts supporting municipal liability connected to the assaults.

Request for appointed counsel. The court denied Werner’s motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal later. It stated that the merits of the case were the most important factor in deciding whether to appoint counsel, but that the case was too early for the court to assess its merits.

State-law claims. The court said it was unclear whether Werner intended to assert state-law claims. Because it had allowed him to amend, it postponed deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed Werner’s claims against the named defendants and directed the clerk to terminate those defendants on the docket. It granted Werner 60 days to file an amended complaint focused on the alleged assaults and complying with the court’s instructions. The amended complaint had to identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates, times, and locations, describe injuries, and state the relief sought. The court explained that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

The court stated that Werner could use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for an unidentified defendant with a description, but warned that this would not pause the applicable three-year limitations period. No summons would issue at that time. If Werner failed to amend timely and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also denied the motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice and denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Judge

The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.