Cruz v. I.C.M. Manhattan, NY

Background

Abraham Cruz filed this self-represented action after the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania transferred it to the Southern District of New York. The court understood Cruz to be suing the United States, the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, New York, the facility’s warden, a psychiatrist assigned to the facility, and a prisoner identified as “Mr. Manulev.” Cruz sought damages and appeared to challenge his federal conviction and sentence.

Cruz alleged that another prisoner assaulted him while he was incarcerated at the federal facility. He said that, after he reported the assault and received medical attention, the psychiatrist accused him of wanting to commit suicide. Cruz alleged that he reacted to the psychiatrist, who then had him confined, transferred to a federal prison in North Carolina, and declared incompetent without an evaluation. The opinion states that Cruz did not specify whether the prisoner who assaulted him was Manulev.

Court’s analysis and rulings

The court treated Cruz’s challenge to his conviction and sentence as a request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because that statute requires the challenge to be brought in the court that imposed the sentence, the court transferred that portion of the complaint to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The court dismissed without prejudice Cruz’s damages claims against the United States. It explained that the United States generally has immunity from lawsuits unless it has waived that immunity. The Federal Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver, but requires a claimant to first submit an administrative claim and receive a final written decision, or wait six months without such a decision. The court found that Cruz had not alleged facts showing that he met those requirements.

The court dismissed Cruz’s claims against the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center for failure to state a claim because a damages action of the type Cruz invoked under Bivens must be brought against an individual federal officer or employee, not against a federal prison.

The court granted Cruz leave to amend his other claims. Regarding the alleged failure to protect him from assault, the court said Cruz needed to allege facts showing both a serious risk of harm and that prison officials knowingly disregarded that risk. Regarding the alleged retaliation by the psychiatrist, the court said Cruz needed to allege facts showing a connection between protected conduct and the psychiatrist’s alleged adverse actions. The court also said Cruz had not alleged facts showing the warden’s personal involvement in any constitutional violation and allowed him to amend to identify personally involved federal officers or employees.

Counsel and amendment requirements

The court denied Cruz’s two motions for pro bono counsel without prejudice because the case was too early for the court to assess its merits. The court explained that it could request, but not appoint, a volunteer attorney under the applicable statute.

The court granted Cruz 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to identify each defendant, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide dates and locations when possible, explain how the conduct violated Cruz’s federal rights, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. The court directed that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

The order stated that if Cruz failed to amend on time without showing good cause, the court would dismiss the federal claims that it had neither transferred nor dismissed and would decline to consider the state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction.