Murray v. City of New York
- Garnett
- 1:23-cv-00458
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Robert L. Murray v. City of New York, Judge Garnett ordered Murray to explain why his fee-waiver status should not be revoked under the prisoner three-strikes rule.
Robert L. Murray’s ability to continue this case without prepaying filing fees; the order also required him to address whether he wants to continue the stayed case.
What happened
In Robert L. Murray v. City of New York, Robert L. Murray, representing himself, alleged that the defendants used excessive force against him while he was incarcerated. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees and had stayed the case at his request because of his hospitalization. The City asked the court to recognize an earlier decision finding that Murray had three qualifying dismissals under the federal prisoner three-strikes rule.
The court reviewed the three prior matters and concluded that each counted as a strike because the claims or appeal had been dismissed for failure to state a claim or because the appeal had no arguable legal or factual basis. Under the rule, a prisoner with three such strikes generally cannot proceed without paying filing fees unless he shows that he faces an immediate risk of serious physical injury.
Judge Garnett did not yet revoke Murray’s status. Instead, she ordered him to submit a declaration by December 22, 2025, showing either that he did not have three qualifying strikes or that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury. His submission must also state whether he still wants to pursue the case and whether the stay should be lifted.
The detailed version
- Murray v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-00458
- Garnett
- Nov. 25, 2025
Background
Robert L. Murray filed this lawsuit on January 17, 2023, alleging that the defendants used excessive force against him while he was incarcerated at a New York correctional facility. Murray was proceeding without a lawyer. The court permitted him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and later stayed the case at his request because he was hospitalized.
The City of New York filed a letter-motion asking the court to take judicial notice—formally recognize as established—a decision in another case that revoked Murray’s status allowing him to proceed without prepaying fees. Before making that revocation in this case, the court ordered Murray to show cause, meaning to explain why the requested action should not be taken.
Three-strikes rule
The court explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “Three-Strikes Provision,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying filing fees if, on three or more occasions while incarcerated, the prisoner brought an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The bar does not apply if the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court reviewed the three matters identified in the earlier related proceeding:
- In Murray v. Fischer et al., No. 12-CV-01782 (FJS) (TWD) (N.D.N.Y. 2012), the court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim and without further leave to amend. - In Murray v. Nephew, No. 12-CV-01783 (FJS) (CFH) (N.D.N.Y. 2012), the court dismissed the claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a claim. - In Murray v. Gillani, No. 13-952 (2d Cir. 2013), the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal because it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact.
Based on its review, the court found that all three matters qualified as strikes under Section 1915(g). It therefore concluded that Murray was barred from proceeding without prepaying filing fees unless he showed imminent danger.
Order
The court did not yet revoke Murray’s filing-fee status. Citing the general right of a self-represented litigant to notice and an opportunity to respond before an unfavorable final decision, the court ordered Murray to submit a declaration by December 22, 2025. The declaration must show either that he had not filed three or more qualifying cases while incarcerated or that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court also directed Murray to state whether he continued to seek prosecution of this case and, if so, whether the existing stay should be lifted. If he failed to respond or failed to establish one of the required grounds, the court stated that it would revoke his filing-fee status. Judge Margaret M. Garnett signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.