Adkins v. City of New York
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-03628-GBD-VF
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Adkins v. City of New York, Judge Daniels granted the City’s dismissal motion and granted Adkins leave to amend his civil-rights complaint.
Felipe Adkins’s claims against the City of New York were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), while he was granted leave to amend. The opinion does not state a separate ruling on the claims against Captain Dominique Harris.
What happened
In Adkins v. City of New York, Felipe Adkins, representing himself, sued the City and Captain Dominique Harris under a federal civil-rights law. He claimed that he was wrongly kept in isolation, missed a court appearance, and lost recreation time.
The City asked the court to dismiss the complaint, and Adkins asked for permission to amend it. A magistrate judge recommended granting both requests. No one objected to that recommendation.
Judge George B. Daniels found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, granted the City’s motion to dismiss, and granted Adkins leave to amend. The ruling addressed the claims against the City; the opinion does not state a separate disposition for Captain Harris.
The detailed version
- Adkins v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-03628-GBD-VF
- George Daniels
- Mar. 3, 2020
Background
Felipe Adkins, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York and Security Captain Dominique Harris of the Brooklyn Detention Complex. Adkins alleged that he was placed in isolation for an extended period. He described an initial period of isolation at the George R. Vierno Center, followed by another period at the Brooklyn Detention Complex after he was told that he still owed 10 days in isolation. He alleged that this second isolation caused him to miss a court appearance and deprived him of recreation time. He also described a physical altercation with another inmate after his release from the second isolation.
The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim. Adkins later requested permission to amend his complaint. Magistrate Judge Freeman recommended granting the City’s motion and granting Adkins leave to amend. No party filed objections.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the magistrate judge’s report for clear error and found none. It therefore adopted the report.
The court held that Adkins’s allegations did not state a § 1983 claim against the City. A municipality can be liable under § 1983 only when an official policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged civil-rights violation. The court found that, even reading Adkins’s filings liberally and considering additional allegations in his opposition letter, he did not allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused his transfer into isolation, loss of recreation time, or inability to attend his court date.
The court nevertheless granted Adkins’s request for leave to amend, particularly because he was representing himself. The opinion does not state a separate disposition of the claims against Captain Harris.
Disposition
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Freeman’s report, granted the City’s motion to dismiss, and granted Adkins’s request for leave to amend his complaint. The Clerk was directed to close the motion.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.