Clark v. City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:18-cv-02334
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Clark v. City of New York, Judge Torres dismissed two damages requests but otherwise denied the City’s motion to dismiss.
Jamilla Clark, Arwa Aziz, Turning Point for Women and Families, and the City of New York; Aziz’s state-law compensatory-damages claim and the plaintiffs’ punitive-damages demand were dismissed, while the other claims survived the motion.
What happened
In Clark v. City of New York, Jamilla Clark, Arwa Aziz, and Turning Point for Women and Families challenged a New York City Police Department policy requiring arrested people to be photographed without head coverings. They claimed the policy violated federal religious-protection law and the federal and New York State constitutional rights to practice religion freely.
The City asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiffs could not bring the claims and had not stated valid legal claims. The plaintiffs agreed that the City could not be ordered to pay punitive damages and that Aziz’s state-law claim for compensatory damages should be dismissed because she filed an untimely notice of claim.
Judge Analisa Torres dismissed the demand for punitive damages and dismissed Aziz’s state-law compensatory-damages claim without prejudice. She otherwise denied the City’s motion, finding that the complaint plausibly supported a right to relief; the court said it would address the surviving claims in a later memorandum.
The detailed version
- Clark v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-02334
- Analisa Torres
- Sept. 30, 2020
Background
Jamilla Clark, Arwa Aziz, and Turning Point for Women and Families sued the City of New York. They alleged that a New York City Police Department policy requiring arrested individuals to have their photographs taken without head coverings violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law protecting religious exercise in certain settings; the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment; and the Free Exercise Clause of the New York State Constitution.
Motion to dismiss
The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns whether the court has authority to hear a claim, and Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The opinion does not describe a separate merits ruling on the validity of the police policy.
The plaintiffs conceded that the City was immune from punitive damages. They also conceded that Aziz’s state-law claim for compensatory damages should be dismissed without prejudice because she had filed an untimely notice of claim. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling or another permitted proceeding, although the opinion does not decide whether any later filing would succeed.
Ruling and effect
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages and dismissed without prejudice Aziz’s state-law claim for compensatory damages. The court otherwise denied the City’s motion to dismiss. It found that the complaint’s factual allegations plausibly supported an entitlement to relief and stated that it would issue a memorandum opinion addressing the surviving claims later. The Clerk was directed to terminate the City’s motion.
Because this order addressed whether the complaint could proceed rather than deciding whether the challenged policy violated the plaintiffs’ rights, it is classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.