Muniz v. City of New York
- Ho
- 1:24-cv-06876
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Muniz v. City of New York, Judge Ho dismissed claims against the Department of Correction because it cannot be sued, while requesting service waivers from the City and Mayor Adams.
Jose Lewis Muniz’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction were dismissed. His claims against the City of New York and Mayor Eric Adams were not dismissed in this order, and the court requested that they waive service.
What happened
Jose Lewis Muniz, who is representing himself and is held at the Robert N. Davoren Center on Rikers Island, sued the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, and Mayor Eric Adams. He alleged violations of his federal constitutional rights and also brought claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and state law.
The court screened the complaint under laws requiring review of prisoner lawsuits. It dismissed Muniz’s claims against the Department of Correction because, as a City agency, it is not an entity that can be sued. The court requested that the City and Mayor Adams waive formal service of the lawsuit.
Judge Dale E. Ho also directed the clerk to send Muniz information and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the merits of Muniz’s claims against the City or Mayor Adams.
The detailed version
- Muniz v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-06876
- Ho
- May 7, 2025
Background
Jose Lewis Muniz filed the action while representing himself and while held at the Robert N. Davoren Center on Rikers Island. He sought damages and alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. The defendants named in the complaint were the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction (DOC), and New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
The court understood the complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and comparable state-law claims. The court had previously allowed Muniz to proceed without prepaying filing fees. That permission does not exempt a prisoner from paying the full filing fee over time under the applicable statute.
Screening and Claims Against the DOC
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or officials. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court dismissed Muniz’s claims against the DOC for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It relied on New York City law and decisions holding that the DOC, as an agency of the City of New York, does not have the capacity to be sued. The court therefore dismissed the claims against the DOC under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
City and Mayor Adams
The court requested that the City of New York and Mayor Adams waive service of summonses. It also directed the clerk to notify the DOC and the New York City Law Department electronically. The order does not decide the merits of Muniz’s claims against the City or Mayor Adams.
Conclusion
The court directed the clerk to mail Muniz an information package and dismissed his claims against the DOC. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Muniz permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Judge Dale E. Ho signed the order on May 7, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.