Staboleski v. New York Police Department

Background

Jeffrey L. Staboleski, proceeding without a lawyer, filed the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that an arresting New York Police Department officer and the lieutenant on duty violated his right to freely practice his religion during his September 8, 2019 arrest. According to the complaint, after he was taken to the Midtown South Precinct, he asked for his Qur’an and prayer rug. He alleged that the officer, acting under the lieutenant’s guidance, refused because he could not put those items in his pocket. He was allowed access to his Fortress of the Muslim prayer book. He sought damages for mental distress.

The original complaint named the New York Police Department. The court later directed service on the City of New York, which was substituted as the defendant. The City moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally valid claim. Staboleski did not file opposition papers, but the court noted that failing to oppose the motion was not by itself a reason to dismiss the case.

Religious-Exercise Claims

The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The court explained that a First Amendment religious-exercise claim requires facts showing that officials sought to interfere with religious practice or placed a substantial burden on a central religious belief without a sufficiently strong governmental justification. For a person being held by the government, the court also considers whether the restriction was reasonably related to legitimate security or administrative interests.

The court held that the alleged denial of the Qur’an and prayer rug during a single booking did not plausibly show that the officers intended to insult or restrict Staboleski’s religious practices. It also held that the complaint did not allege that the denial coerced him, substantially burdened his religious beliefs, restricted his ability to practice his religion, or otherwise interfered with his First Amendment rights. The court further stated that the explanation that he could not put the items in his pocket suggested a security-related reason for the restriction.

The court dismissed the RLUIPA claim for the same reason. It concluded that the complaint did not show that the temporary denial of the Qur’an and prayer rug during booking imposed either a substantial or any other legally sufficient burden on religious exercise.

Municipal Liability

A claim against a municipality under § 1983 generally requires allegations that an official municipal policy or custom caused the violation of a constitutional or statutory right. The court held that Staboleski did not adequately allege municipal liability. First, because the complaint did not adequately allege a constitutional violation, the municipal-liability claim failed at the threshold. Second, the alleged single incident involving actors below the policymaking level was insufficient to show a City policy or custom.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The dismissal was without prejudice to Staboleski amending the complaint. Judge Lewis J. Liman granted him 60 days, until April 30, 2021, to file an amended complaint containing allegations supporting his constitutional and RLUIPA claims. The court stated that if he did not timely amend, it would terminate the case.