Paloma v. New York City Department of Corrections
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-00638
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Miriahm Paloma v. City of New York, Judge Ramos denied without prejudice Paloma’s motion to stop unspecified arrears from accruing.
Miriahm Paloma’s motion to stop unspecified arrears from accruing was denied without prejudice; the opinion did not resolve her underlying constitutional or state-law claims.
What happened
Miriahm Paloma sued the City of New York, the Rose M. Singer Center, and two captains, claiming constitutional and state-law violations involving missing property, handcuffing, and suicide watch. She represented herself.
Paloma later asked the court to “settle” or stop the accumulation of unspecified arrears while she was incarcerated and while her case continued. She also requested a large payment and immediate release after receiving it.
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Paloma’s motion without prejudice because the filing did not identify the arrears, whom she owed, or a legal basis for the court to stop them from accruing.
The detailed version
- Paloma v. New York City Department of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-00638
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Miriah Paloma brought the case while held at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island. She represented herself and sought damages for alleged constitutional violations. The court construed her complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain claims against government actors, and under state law.
Paloma alleged that, between January 1 and January 3, 2020, her commissary items and personal property were stolen after Captain Folks and Captain Speights left them unsecured while rehousing her. She further alleged that Speights told her to go to mental health after she reported the missing property, that she was placed on suicide watch when she refused, and that she suffered a bruise on her left hand from being handcuffed. She alleged that the suicide-watch placement lasted more than 24 hours without a court order or physician’s consent. Her complaint sought reimbursement for property and commissary items allegedly worth up to $200, along with compensation for malpractice and negligent security.
Motion
Paloma filed a motion asking to “settle” or keep “arrears” closed. In supporting materials, she referred to services such as health care, education, and Social Security, requested damages of $122,525,018,122.50, and asked for immediate release from incarceration after receiving the settlement. She did not identify specific arrears in the motion. The court noted that an earlier fee application stated that she owed $5,000 to “creditors.”
Court’s reasoning
The court interpreted the motion as a request to stop certain arrears from accumulating while Paloma remained incarcerated and while the civil case was pending. It found no legal claim for what Paloma called “settlement of arrears.” The court also found that the filing did not explain whom she owed, what the arrears concerned, or why the court had authority to stop them from accruing. Because the information was insufficient, the court could not reach the merits of the motion.
Disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Paloma’s motion without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail her a copy of the order and to terminate the motion, docket entry 12. The opinion did not decide the merits of Paloma’s underlying claims about her property, handcuffing, or suicide-watch placement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.