Tripathy v. Feuz

Background

Sanjay Tripathy, who was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility, filed this self-represented action after paying the filing fee. He alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights and asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. His complaint also requested preliminary injunctive relief, meaning a temporary court order issued before the case is finally decided.

Preliminary injunctive relief

The court denied Tripathy’s request for preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice to renewal at a later stage. The court explained that this type of relief requires a showing of likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. At this stage, the court found that Tripathy had not shown that he would suffer irreparable harm without the requested relief.

Screening and Eleventh Amendment immunity

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court screened the prisoner complaint to determine whether any claim was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or was outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court dismissed Tripathy’s claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the New York State Board of Examiners for Sex Offenders, and the New York State Board of Parole.

The court relied on Eleventh Amendment immunity, a constitutional protection that generally prevents states and their arms or instrumentalities from being sued in federal court unless the state has waived that protection or Congress has removed it. The court stated that New York had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it for claims under Section 1983 or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. It therefore dismissed the claims against those three entities under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2).

Remaining defendants and next steps

The court directed the clerk to issue summonses for Feuz, Reid, Gonzalez, Wood, Burnett, McKoy, Stanford, Harrington, and Cuomo. Tripathy was directed to serve each defendant with the summons and complaint within 90 days after the summonses were issued. The court stated that it could dismiss the claims against a defendant for failure to prosecute if Tripathy did not complete service or request an extension within that period.

The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order.