Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 9, 2021

Tripathy v. McClowski

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:21-cv-06584
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil RightsSection 1983Preliminary InjunctionPro Se
In one sentence

In Tripathy v. McClowski, Judge Seibel dismissed claims against DOCCS, denied preliminary relief without prejudice to renewal, and ordered service on other defendants.

Who this affects

Tripathy’s claims against DOCCS were dismissed, his request for preliminary injunctive relief was denied without prejudice to renewal, and his claims against the other listed defendants were directed to proceed to service.

What happened

In Tripathy v. McClowski, Sanjay Tripathy, who was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility and represented himself, sued prison-related defendants under a federal civil-rights law and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, alleging violations of religious freedom. The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

The court dismissed Tripathy’s claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision because the Eleventh Amendment barred those claims. It also denied Tripathy’s request for a preliminary injunction because he had not shown that he would suffer irreparable harm, while allowing him to renew that request later.

The court ordered summonses to be issued for the remaining listed defendants and directed Tripathy to serve them within 90 days or request more time. Judge Seibel also denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Tripathy v. McClowski · No. 7:21-cv-06584
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
Aug. 9, 2021

Background

Sanjay Tripathy, who was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility, brought this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. He alleged that the defendants violated his right to religious freedom. Tripathy paid the filing fees.

Because Tripathy was a prisoner suing governmental parties, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Claims Against DOCCS

The court held that Tripathy’s claims under § 1983 against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, or DOCCS, were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. That constitutional protection generally prevents suits against states and state agencies in federal court unless an exception applies. The court stated that New York had not waived this immunity and that Congress had not removed it when it enacted § 1983.

The court therefore dismissed Tripathy’s claims against DOCCS. The opinion did not dismiss the claims against the other defendants on this ground.

Request for Preliminary Injunction

Tripathy also sought a preliminary injunction, which is an order issued before final judgment to prevent immediate harm while a case continues. The court stated that he had to show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions supporting the case and a favorable balance of hardships.

The court found that, at that stage, Tripathy had not shown that he would suffer irreparable harm without the requested relief. It denied his request for preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice to renewal at a later stage.

Service and Remaining Defendants

The clerk was directed to issue summonses for Robert McClowski, Sharon Frost, George J. Dash, Edward Burnett, Nolan, Reverend Harris, Andrea N. Schneider, Stephen Brandow, Jeff McKoy, Anthony J. Annucci, and Andrew Cuomo. Tripathy was directed to serve each defendant within 90 days after the summonses were issued or request an extension. The court stated that failure to do so could lead to dismissal of the claims against those defendants for failure to prosecute.

Appeal

The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.

Disposition

The court dismissed Tripathy’s claims against DOCCS, denied his request for preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice to renewal at a later stage, directed issuance of summonses for the listed defendants, and denied fee-free appeal status.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.