Anduze v. City of New York
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-00519
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Anduze v. City of New York, Judge Stanton allowed a legible amended complaint within sixty days because the original was largely unreadable.
Jahmanni Anduze received an opportunity to replace his largely illegible complaint with a legible amended complaint. The City of New York and the other defendants were not required to respond at this stage because no summons would issue yet.
What happened
Jahmanni Anduze sued the City of New York and other defendants under a federal civil-rights law, claiming that they violated his constitutional rights. He was detained at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island and was proceeding without a lawyer.
Anduze alleged that officials retaliated against him because he shared a housing unit with another inmate who had sued correctional officers. He said officials denied him daily showers and a razor, limited commissary purchases, interfered with his mail, and restricted phone calls to his family and lawyer. The court said much of his photocopied complaint was too difficult to read to evaluate fully or give the defendants fair notice.
Judge Louis L. Stanton gave Anduze sixty days to file a legible amended complaint that states the relevant facts, identifies each defendant and the defendant’s conduct, and explains the relief sought. The order says the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice if he does not comply within the allowed time and cannot show good cause.
The detailed version
- Anduze v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-00519
- Paul Gardephe
- Feb. 26, 2021
Background
Jahmanni Anduze brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York and other defendants. The opinion states that he was detained at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island and was proceeding without a lawyer. In an earlier order, the court allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
Anduze alleged that the defendants retaliated against him because he was housed in the same unit as Alexander Williams, another inmate who had filed civil-rights actions against correctional officers. According to the allegations the court could read, the defendants denied Anduze access to daily showers and a razor, restricted his ability to buy items at the commissary, interfered with his mail, and restricted his phone calls to family members and his lawyer. The opinion says that pages 21 through 47 and other portions of the photocopied complaint were virtually illegible. The court also could not determine what specific relief Anduze sought.
Screening standard
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief from a governmental entity or its officers or employees. The court must dismiss a complaint, or part of one, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or presents a matter over which the court lacks authority to rule.
The court explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read generously, but they still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The complaint must include enough factual detail to make the claim plausible and to give defendants fair notice of the allegations against them.
Court’s ruling
The court did not dismiss the action at this stage. Because the complaint was largely illegible, Judge Louis L. Stanton said the court could not properly evaluate the full nature and extent of Anduze’s claims, and the pleading did not give the defendants fair notice. The court therefore granted Anduze leave to file a legible amended complaint within sixty days.
The amended complaint must be titled “Amended Complaint,” use docket number 21-CV-0519 (LLS), and be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. It must state the relevant facts supporting each claim, identify the defendants and their addresses, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations when possible, describe the alleged violations and injuries, and state the relief requested. The amended complaint will completely replace the original complaint, so any claims or facts Anduze wants to maintain must be included again. No summons would issue at that time. If Anduze failed to file a legible amended complaint within sixty days and could not show good cause for the failure, the opinion states that the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.