Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 8, 2025

Murray v. Sergeant Fox

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:25-cv-04880
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Murray v. Fox, Judge Seibel dismissed claims against two state entities, denied pending motions without prejudice, and ordered service on two individual defendants.

Who this affects

Daniel Murray’s claims against Green Haven Correctional Facility and the Office of Special Investigation were dismissed. The case proceeds for service purposes against Sergeant Fox and Warden Mark Miller, and Murray’s pending motions were denied without prejudice.

What happened

In Murray v. Sergeant Fox, Daniel Murray, who is representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law, claiming that the defendants violated his federally protected rights. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

The court dismissed Murray’s claims against Green Haven Correctional Facility and the Office of Special Investigation because they are protected by state immunity from this type of monetary lawsuit. The court allowed the case to proceed against Sergeant Fox and Warden Mark Miller for service purposes and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve them. It also denied Murray’s pending motions without prejudice and applied a standard prisoner-discovery rule.

Judge Cathy Seibel issued the July 8, 2025 order. The order does not decide whether Fox or Miller violated Murray’s rights; it directs service and sets related case procedures.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Murray v. Sergeant Fox · No. 7:25-cv-04880
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
July 8, 2025

Background

Daniel Murray, who is detained at the Warren County Jail in Lake George, New York, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by state actors. The court had already granted him permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. After filing the complaint, Murray moved to refer the case to a magistrate judge and filed another motion seeking to “reopen” the case and refer it to a magistrate judge.

Screening and dismissed defendants

The court reviewed the complaint under the statutes requiring dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from immune defendants, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that the Eleventh Amendment generally protects states and their arms from monetary suits in federal court unless an exception applies.

The court determined that the Office of Special Investigation is part of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, and that Green Haven Correctional Facility is protected as a state correctional facility. Because the claims against those defendants sought monetary relief from entities protected by state immunity, the court dismissed Murray’s claims against Green Haven Correctional Facility and the Office of Special Investigation. The opinion does not specify that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Service and case procedures

Because Murray was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare summonses and U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return forms for Sergeant Fox and Warden Mark Miller, and to provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service. The order states that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued; if service is not completed by then, Murray should request an extension. Murray must also notify the court in writing of any address change, and the court may dismiss the action if he does not.

The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. Under that rule, the defendants must serve responses to specified prisoner-case interrogatories and document requests within 120 days after service of the complaint.

Disposition

The court denied Murray’s pending motions without prejudice and directed the Clerk to terminate them. It dismissed the claims against Green Haven Correctional Facility and the Office of Special Investigation, directed service on Sergeant Fox and Warden Mark Miller, and applied Local Civil Rule 33.2. The order did not decide the underlying question of whether Sergeant Fox or Warden Miller violated Murray’s federally protected rights.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.