Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 21, 2020

Massey v. City of New York

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:20-cv-07617
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Massey v. City of New York: Judge Carter dismissed claims against DOC as not suable and requested service waivers from the City and Tindal.

Who this affects

The ruling dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Correction, while the City of New York and Assistant Deputy Warden Tindal remained subject to the court’s request to waive service. The appeal-fee ruling affected Tyrone H. Massey.

What happened

In Massey v. City of New York, Tyrone H. Massey, who was detained at the Manhattan Detention Complex, brought a civil-rights case without a lawyer under a federal law allowing claims against government officials. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights while he was detained at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island.

The court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. It concluded that the New York City Department of Correction, an agency of the City, could not be sued in its own name.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. dismissed Massey’s claims against the Department of Correction, requested that the City of New York and Assistant Deputy Warden Tindal waive service of the summons, and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for any appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Massey v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-07617
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Sept. 21, 2020

Background

Tyrone H. Massey brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. He was detained at the Manhattan Detention Complex and alleged that the defendants violated his rights on February 15, 2020, while he was detained at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island. In an earlier order, the court allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

The defendants named in the caption were the City of New York, the New York City Department of Corrections, and Assistant Deputy Warden Tindal.

Screening standard

The court explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief from a governmental entity or a government officer or employee. The court must dismiss all or part of a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from a defendant legally immune from such relief, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Rulings

The court dismissed Massey’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction because, as a City agency, it did not have the legal capacity to be sued in its own name. The opinion did not dismiss the claims against the City of New York or Assistant Deputy Warden Tindal. Instead, the court requested that those defendants waive service of the summons and directed the Clerk of Court to notify the Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of the order.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Massey permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Massey a copy of the order and an information package.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.