Drew v. City of New York

Background

Keith Drew brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute, against the City of New York. He alleged that the City’s policies for inmate accounts deprived him of property without due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. He sought injunctive and declaratory relief and asserted municipal-liability claims against the City.

The City’s Department of Correction maintained an inmate transaction list and a separate unpaid restitution list. When an inmate lacked funds for certain expenses, including MetroCards and haircuts, the amounts were recorded as unpaid restitutions. Later deposits could be used to repay those amounts. Before May 2019, phone charges also could be recorded as unpaid restitutions and paid from later deposits. The court noted that a 2018 New York City law ended inmate phone charges starting in May 2019 and removed unpaid phone charges accrued before that date.

Drew’s records showed unpaid charges for haircuts or hairstyles, MetroCards, filing fees, and a disciplinary surcharge. They also showed deductions from later deposits to pay prior phone charges. Drew argued that he had been charged for calls he did not make, haircuts he did not receive, and other expenses without adequate notice.

Rulings

The court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence requires a trial or instead establishes that one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

First, the court held that Drew’s claims based on transactions before November 8, 2016, were barred by a release agreement he signed on that date. The agreement released the City and related officials, employees, representatives, and agents from civil-rights and related state-law claims through the date of the release. The court found no genuine factual dispute about the release’s authenticity, Drew’s signature, or the circumstances of its signing.

Second, the court dismissed Drew’s Fifth Amendment claim with prejudice because the Fifth Amendment does not apply to state actors. The court treated his property claim as arising under the Fourteenth Amendment instead. It held that a loss of inmate property generally does not support a § 1983 due-process claim when adequate state post-deprivation remedies are available. The court concluded that New York provided such a remedy, including an action in the New York Court of Claims.

The court also rejected Drew’s contention that the records created a factual dispute about the phone charges. It found that the records showed charges made under the Department of Correction’s policy, including deductions for earlier calls when funds later became available. The court stated that Drew’s incomplete phone records did not overcome the City’s evidence. Claims concerning haircuts or hairstyles before November 8, 2016, were likewise barred by the release.

The court rejected Drew’s municipal-liability claim based on failure to train. It found that he had not identified a specific training deficiency, shown deliberate indifference by the City, or established a constitutional deprivation caused by the alleged failure to train.

The court separately held that the policy transferring unpaid restitution charges from prior incarcerations to a later inmate account was rationally related to legitimate prison interests, including deterring inmate misconduct and raising revenue. It therefore held that the policy was constitutional. The court also rejected challenges to charges for MetroCards, haircuts, filing fees, and disciplinary violations. It stated that filing-fee deductions were authorized through the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act and Drew’s prisoner authorizations.

The court rejected any Fourth Amendment claim because deductions from an inmate account do not state a valid Fourth Amendment claim. It also declined to consider, as a matter of federal-court authority over state-law questions, Drew’s argument that the disciplinary charges lacked authorization under state law.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Drew’s claims. It separately dismissed the claims against “Unknown Supervisor” and “Unknown Employee” without prejudice because Drew had not timely identified and joined those defendants. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. signed the opinion and order on March 31, 2021.