Murray v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-03629
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Murray v. City of New York, Judge Swain denied fee-free filing and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the PLRA’s three-strikes rule.
Robert Murray’s ability to file this action and future actions without paying filing fees while he is in custody; the court dismissed this complaint without prejudice.
What happened
In Murray v. City of New York, Robert Murray, who was detained at Rikers Island and represented himself, sued the City of New York, the Department of Correction Food Service Department, and a John Doe defendant. He asked to file without paying the court fee.
The court said Murray had at least three prior cases or appeals dismissed for reasons covered by the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. His complaint alleged that his kosher meals were not served in a spiritual, honorable, and noble way, but it did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury.
The court denied Murray’s request to proceed without paying the fee and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. It also denied fee-free status for any appeal and entered judgment. Judge Swain stated that Murray may bring a new action by paying the filing fee, and that he may seek fee-free filing while in custody only if he faces an immediate danger of serious physical injury.
The detailed version
- Murray v. City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-03629
- Laura Swain
- May 6, 2025
Background
Robert Murray, also known as the names and descriptions listed in the caption, filed this action against the City of New York, the Department of Correction Food Service Department, and John Doe. He was detained at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island and was representing himself. Murray asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding without prepayment of fees.
Murray alleged that his kosher meals were not being served “in a spiritual – honorable and a noble way.” The opinion does not provide additional details about his underlying claims.
Three-strikes rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act bars a prisoner from bringing a civil action without paying the filing fee if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions while incarcerated or detained, brought an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The exception is when the prisoner is facing an imminent danger of serious physical injury—meaning a danger existing when the complaint is filed.
The court relied on an earlier order identifying three qualifying dismissals: an appeal dismissed as frivolous and two actions dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also concluded that Murray’s allegations about the way his kosher meals were served did not show an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Ruling
The court denied Murray’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the three-strikes rule. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar a new filing; the court stated that Murray could commence a new action by paying the filing fees. Any new complaint would be reviewed under the prisoner-screening statute.
The court further stated that Murray remains barred from filing future actions without paying the filing fee while he is in custody unless he faces an imminent threat of serious physical injury. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment. No ruling was made on the merits of Murray’s underlying allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.