Antrobus v. New York City
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-07038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Antrobus v. New York City, Judge Furman dismissed most claims but allowed religious-exercise claims under the First Amendment and a federal religious-protection law to proceed.
The ruling dismissed the New York City Department of Correction as a defendant and dismissed Antrobus’s mail, evidence-access, and discovery-copying claims. His religious-exercise claims under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act may proceed, and the order leaves open the possibility of identifying individual defendants through another amended complaint.
What happened
In Antrobus v. New York City, Andre Antrobus, who is representing himself and is incarcerated, alleged that correction officials violated his rights by taking his razors, interfering with his mail, blocking access to evidence and document copies, and assaulting him. In his amended complaint, he said he needed to shave for religious reasons connected to Islam.
The court dismissed the New York City Department of Correction because it is a city agency that cannot be sued as a separate entity. It also dismissed the claims about mail, access to evidence, and making discovery copies because they did not include enough facts. The religious-exercise claims under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act were allowed to proceed. The court also requested that the City of New York waive service of the summons.
Judge Jesse M. Furman issued the April 15, 2025 order. The order did not identify individual defendants, but it stated that Antrobus may ask to amend his complaint to name individuals he discovers should be defendants if the case proceeds.
The detailed version
- Antrobus v. New York City · No. 1:23-cv-07038
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 15, 2025
Background
Andre Antrobus brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The opinion states that he was incarcerated at George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island. His original complaint alleged that the defendants violated his religious rights by denying him razors; interfered with his mail; seized favorable exonerating evidence; attacked and sprayed him without cause; and paid other detainees to assault him.
After the court directed Antrobus to provide more facts, he did not timely file an amended complaint, and Chief Judge Swain dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim. The case was later reopened after Antrobus requested more time, and he filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint alleged that the Department of Correction confiscated his razors because he lived in a mental-health unit, allowed him to shave only once every other month, and prevented him from shaving his underarm and pubic hair as required by his religious practice. The court construed that allegation as raising claims under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Antrobus also stated, without additional facts, that he could not send mail, possess evidence related to his defense, or make copies of discovery documents. He did not repeat the assault or excessive-force claim in the amended complaint.
Court’s analysis
The court ruled that the New York City Department of Correction must be dismissed because a city agency is not an entity that can be sued separately under the New York City Charter. The court also relied on Chief Judge Swain’s earlier order in dismissing the allegations concerning mail, access to evidence, and copying discovery documents for failure to state a claim.
The court reached a different conclusion about the religious-exercise allegations. It stated that those claims could proceed under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The order did not decide whether Antrobus would ultimately prevail on those claims.
Disposition
The court dismissed the Department of Correction as a defendant. Apart from the First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claims, it dismissed Antrobus’s claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court requested that the City of New York waive service of the summons. It also noted that the amended complaint did not appear to provide enough information to identify individual defendants and stated that Antrobus may move to file another amended complaint to add names he discovers if the case proceeds.
Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the Clerk of Court to notify the Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department and to mail Antrobus a copy of the order and an information package.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.