Reid v. The City of New York
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-09243
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Reid v. City of New York, Judge Failla dismissed claims against two prosecutors as immune and ordered service on the remaining defendants.
Cedric Reid’s claims for monetary relief against Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. and Lisa Franchini were dismissed on immunity grounds. The order also directed service procedures for Securus Technologies and Martha W. King and requested a service waiver from the City of New York.
What happened
In Reid v. The City of New York, Cedric Reid, who is incarcerated, sued under a federal civil-rights law. He challenged New York City’s policy allowing prosecutors access to recordings of detainees’ personal calls from Rikers Island, arguing that the warnings were misleading.
The court screened the complaint because Reid was proceeding without paying the filing fee. It dismissed Reid’s claims for money damages against Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. and Lisa Franchini because prosecutors are protected from such suits for actions connected to their official prosecutorial duties.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Securus Technologies and Martha W. King, and asked the City of New York to waive service. The order did not dismiss the claims against those other defendants.
The detailed version
- Reid v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-09243
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 15, 2021
Background
Cedric Reid, who was incarcerated at Green Meadow Correctional Facility, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the New York City Department of Correction allowed prosecutors unfettered access to recordings of detainees’ personal calls from Rikers Island for use in criminal proceedings. He claimed that the warnings provided to inmates were misleading.
The court had previously granted Reid permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Because Reid was a prisoner proceeding without prepayment of fees, the Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen his complaint. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
Claims Against Vance and Franchini
The court held that prosecutors have absolute immunity from civil suits seeking damages for actions within the scope of their official duties when those actions are closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court also explained that this protection covers certain administrative actions directly connected to conducting a trial.
The court concluded that Reid’s claims against Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. and Lisa Franchini were based on actions within their official prosecutorial duties and associated with conducting a criminal trial. It therefore dismissed Reid’s claims against Vance and Franchini because they sought monetary relief from defendants immune from that relief.
Service of Process
Because Reid was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, he was entitled to rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons was issued, rather than 90 days after the complaint was filed. It stated that Reid should request an extension if service was not completed within that period.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the required service forms, issue summonses, and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on Securus Technologies and Martha W. King, identified in the order as the Executive Director of the Board of Correction. The court also directed the Clerk to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department and requested that the City of New York waive service of summons.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed the claims against Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. and Lisa Franchini. The order directed steps for serving Securus Technologies and Martha W. King and requested that the City of New York waive service. It also required Reid to notify the court in writing if his address changed and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.