Carson v. NYC Department of Correction

Background

Cartez D. Carson, who the opinion says is civilly committed on Rikers Island, filed the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, while detained, he requested a ballot for the November 2024 presidential election but never received one. He stated that he asked a social worker about the ballot after repeated attempts and was told that the registration ballot would be delivered, but he still could not cast his ballot. Carson also alleged that there appeared to be discrimination against him because he is a gay man in the LGBTQ community. He sought money damages.

The court had previously granted Carson permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion applied the screening standards requiring dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. It also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims Against the Department of Correction

The court dismissed Carson’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction because, under the New York City Charter, a city agency generally does not have the capacity to be sued. The court described this as a failure to state a claim and cited 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

The court declined at that stage to interpret the complaint as asserting a claim against the City of New York. It explained that a municipality sued under § 1983 must itself have caused the alleged constitutional violation through a policy, custom, or practice. The court said Carson could name New York City in an amended complaint and provide facts suggesting that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional injury.

Voting Claim

The court explained that, when a detained person seeks access to voting by absentee ballot, the relevant claim concerns access to an absentee ballot rather than simply the abstract right to vote. The court stated that correctional staff must provide absentee ballots to pretrial detainees who have no alternative way to vote and that staff may impede voting by failing to assist with obtaining a ballot.

The court nevertheless found Carson’s allegations insufficient. He did not allege that he was eligible to vote in the November 2024 presidential election and registered to vote at his domicile, or that he met registration requirements and sought help registering. He also did not provide enough facts about his interactions with the social worker to suggest that the social worker expressly denied him access to an absentee ballot. The court granted leave to amend this claim rather than dismissing it outright in the conclusion.

Leave to Amend and Order

Because additional facts might allow Carson to state a valid voting claim, the court granted him 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify the people involved, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, state when and where the events occurred, describe the injuries, and identify the requested relief. If Carson does not know a defendant’s name, he may use a John Doe or Jane Doe designation, but the opinion states that doing so does not extend the three-year limitations period.

The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so Carson must repeat any facts or claims he wants the court to consider. The court ordered him to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 24-CV-10052. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Carson failed to comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction and granted Carson leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The court did not issue a summons at that time.