Moore v. City of New York

Background

Ali Moore proceeded without a lawyer and sued the City of New York and more than 40 defendants. The defendants mostly appeared to be New York City Police Department officers and hospital staff employed at Lincoln Hospital and St. Luke’s Hospital. Moore described five groups of events:

- He alleged that the Civilian Complaint Review Board prematurely closed a complaint on or about June 20, 2020. - He alleged that officers arrested him and brought him to Harlem Hospital on October 1, 2021, where he underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was released the next day. - He alleged that officers entered his apartment and brought him to St. Luke’s Hospital on October 5, 2021. - He described events occurring from August 26 through August 29, 2021, and on August 31, 2021, involving people he saw and statements or conduct that reminded him of events from his past. - He alleged that on August 28, 2021, he awoke unable to move, experienced pain, received a call from an individual named Mr. Walker, and saw a large crowd outside his residence and an unscrewed bathroom vent.

The court had previously dismissed this action because Moore had not paid the filing fees or asked to waive them. After judgment and closure of the case, Moore applied to proceed without prepaying fees and moved for reconsideration. The court granted reconsideration, reopened the case, and later granted the fee-waiver application. Moore then filed a second amended complaint and three motions.

Court’s analysis and rulings

The court reviewed the complaint under the screening requirements for cases filed without prepaying fees. Those requirements require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to contain a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

The court dismissed the claims concerning the Civilian Complaint Review Board for failure to state a claim because, under the New York City Charter, the Board cannot be sued. The court also dismissed Moore’s claims based on the August 26–29 and August 31 events because those allegations did not contain facts concerning any named defendant.

The court dismissed Moore’s retaliation claim against Officer Pierre for failure to state a claim because Moore did not describe Pierre’s conduct or explain how Pierre retaliated against him. The court gave Moore 30 days to replead that claim.

As to the October 1 and October 5, 2021 arrest and hospitalization allegations, the court found that the complaint did not comply with the rule requiring a short and plain statement. Moore named more than 40 defendants, making it unclear which defendants he intended to sue over those events. The complaint also did not explain what each defendant did or why that conduct violated Moore’s rights. The court therefore allowed Moore to file a third amended complaint within 30 days. The amendment was limited to defendants who were personally involved in allegedly violating his rights on those two dates.

The court directed Moore to identify the defendants in the caption and claim statement, provide factual details about each defendant’s conduct, and describe the relevant dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The new complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the second amended complaint, so Moore would have to repeat any allegations he wanted the court to consider. The court suggested using the provided form and limiting the complaint to 20 pages.

The court denied Moore’s motion to stay the case, motion asking the court not to accept the amended complaint, and motion to strike the amended complaint. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate those motions. The court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Result

Moore received leave to file a third amended complaint within 30 days. The claims concerning the Review Board and the August 2021 events were dismissed, and the retaliation claim against Officer Pierre was dismissed with 30 days’ leave to replead. The three motions were denied. The order states that the current complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim if Moore did not timely comply without showing good cause.

Note on the opinion’s wording

The order generally directs Moore to file a third amended complaint, but one section refers to granting leave to file a “second amended complaint.” The opinion also contains a footnote referring to a “third amended complaint” while discussing allegations drawn from the second amended complaint.