Terry v. City of New York

Background

Christopher Terry, who was detained at the Manhattan Detention Complex, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York and several detention-facility officials. He alleged that defendants denied him access to social services after learning that he used those services for legal matters, including sending mail to courts, the Family Court, the Internal Revenue Service, and others. He also alleged that officials required him to submit requests on plain white paper but then failed to collect the requests or provide a confidential request process.

Terry described an incident in which Captain Bernard Mathis allegedly told another detainee that social services would be restored to Terry’s unit if that detainee withdrew an earlier lawsuit against Mathis. Terry sought $1 million in damages and requested that the defendants be transferred to another city jail.

Screening standard

Because Terry was a detainee proceeding without paying the filing fee in advance, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally but still must provide enough facts to make a legal claim plausible.

Access to social services

The court dismissed Terry’s claim that defendants denied him access to social services. It held that pretrial detainees do not have a free-standing constitutional right to social services. Terry did not describe the services sufficiently or allege facts showing that he had a constitutional right to the particular services he sought.

The court also held that alleged violations of New York City Department of Correction policies or city law do not, by themselves, establish a federal constitutional violation under § 1983. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Terry may have intended to assert.

Access to the courts and legal mail

The court also dismissed any § 1983 claim based on denial of access to the courts. To state such a claim, Terry needed to allege deliberate and malicious conduct that caused actual injury, such as the loss or dismissal of an otherwise valid legal claim. The court noted that legal mail receives constitutional protection, but Terry did not allege an ongoing practice of unjustified mail interference, that he was unable to use the facility’s regular methods for sending legal mail, or that defendants’ conduct prejudiced his legal matters or impaired his legal representation.

Municipal liability

The court explained that a municipality is not liable under § 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly acted wrongfully. A plaintiff must allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused a constitutional violation. Because Terry had not adequately alleged any constitutional violation, he could not state a § 1983 claim against the City of New York on the allegations then before the court.

Disposition and leave to amend

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon granted Terry 60 days to file an amended complaint. The court instructed him to identify the people involved, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates, times, locations, injuries, and the relief sought, and provide addresses for named defendants. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. The order stated that if Terry failed to amend within the permitted time and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time.