Reed v. The City of New York

Background

Calvin Reed, currently held in the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island, filed this action without a lawyer. The court construed his allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against government actors for violating constitutional rights. Reed did not specify the relief he sought.

Reed alleged that defendants illegally arrested him and exposed him to COVID-19 while he was confined on Rikers Island. He also described alleged irregularities in his ongoing criminal proceedings, denial of access to the facility law library, and repeated searches, including strip searches. The defendants named in the caption were the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and “D.O.C.S.,” which the court identified as the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

The court had previously granted Reed permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. Because Reed was a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and considered whether it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or presented a matter over which the court lacked jurisdiction.

Rulings on the Defendants

The court dismissed Reed’s claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision because the agency is an arm of New York State and is protected by the Eleventh Amendment from these federal claims. The court also dismissed the claims against the New York City Police Department because, as a City agency, it is not a suable entity.

As to the City of New York, the court held that Reed had not alleged facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation. The court did not dismiss the City claim at that point. Instead, because Reed was proceeding without a lawyer, it granted him leave to file an amended complaint containing facts sufficient to state a claim against the City.

The court also noted that Reed had not named any individual defendants or identified by name the people who allegedly violated his rights. It granted him leave to name those individuals and allege facts showing each person’s direct and personal involvement.

Related Claims

The court held that Reed could not combine unrelated constitutional injuries against multiple defendants in one action. If he amended the complaint, he had to choose which related group of claims to pursue: the alleged illegal arrests; conditions at the North Infirmary Command, including COVID-19 exposure, searches, and lack of law-library access; or irregularities in his ongoing criminal proceedings. The court stated that Reed could pursue unrelated injuries in separate civil actions.

The court also explained that a request for release from confinement must be brought through a separate petition challenging the confinement after available state remedies have been exhausted.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Reed 60 days from the order’s date to submit an amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. The amended complaint had to be labeled “Amended Complaint,” use the existing docket number, identify defendants in both the caption and the factual allegations, describe the relevant facts, dates, locations, alleged violations, injuries, and requested relief, and provide addresses for named defendants when possible.

The amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint. Reed was instructed not to reassert claims that the court dismissed in this order. The court stated that if he failed to comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, it would dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time.