Wright v. Bronx Criminal Court

Background

Marcus Wright filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while detained at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island. Wright proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. The defendants named in the complaint were the Bronx Criminal Court; the New York City Department of Correction; the warden of the Rose M. Singer Center; the Bronx Legal Aid Society; the Bronx Ryer Avenue Precinct of the New York City Police Department; Susan Laurie Gans; and Michael Fineman.

Wright alleged that Wright was arrested at a laundromat after the owner said Wright had stolen a jacket. Wright also alleged that the arrest involved an outstanding warrant, that the petit-larceny charges were dismissed because the prosecutor was not ready for trial, and that attorneys Gans and Fineman failed to obtain the Bronx case number or other information. The opinion states that Wright had also alleged in the original complaint that the arrest was based on a false statement and that the attorneys failed to obtain a property receipt.

Earlier dismissal and amended complaint

In an earlier order, the court dismissed claims against the Bronx Criminal Court as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. It dismissed claims against the Department of Correction and the NYPD precinct because New York City agencies cannot be sued in their own names; it also found no allegations showing that New York City had a policy, practice, or custom violating Wright’s rights. The court dismissed claims against the warden for lack of personal involvement and claims against the Bronx Legal Aid Society, Gans, and Fineman because private actors cannot be held liable under § 1983. The court also found no diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction over possible state-law malpractice claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

The court allowed Wright to amend to allege facts supporting diversity jurisdiction for state-law claims against Gans and Fineman and facts suggesting a viable constitutional claim against New York City and the warden. Wright’s amended complaint named the same defendants, including defendants for whom amendment had not been authorized, and alleged facts that were essentially the same as those in the original complaint.

Ruling

The court dismissed the amended complaint for the same reasons identified in the earlier order: it was barred by the Eleventh Amendment and failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted under the screening statute for claims filed without paying the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). Because the federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain declined to grant another opportunity to amend because the defects could not be cured by further amendment. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The opinion does not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation to the dismissal.