Morris v. City Of New York
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-09314
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
In Morris v. City of New York, Judge Daniels granted dismissal of the federal claims and dismissed any state-law claims.
Jomonni Morris’s federal civil-rights claims were dismissed, and any state-law claims were dismissed after the court declined supplemental jurisdiction. The court denied the defendants’ request to convert the exhaustion issue into a summary-judgment motion. Morris was permitted to seek leave to amend by the stated deadline if amendment would not be futile.
What happened
In Morris v. City Of New York, Jomonni Morris sued New York City and correctional officials under a federal civil-rights law and state law. He alleged that officials used inmates to attack and harass him and failed to provide adequate protection and medical care.
The defendants argued that Morris had not stated a valid claim and had not completed required prison grievance procedures. The court found that the complaint did not identify enough facts showing how particular defendants were involved, that the alleged “World Tour” existed, or that a city policy caused Morris’s injuries.
Judge George B. Daniels denied the defendants’ request to convert the exhaustion issue into a summary-judgment motion, but granted their motion to dismiss the federal claims. The court declined to hear any state-law claims and dismissed them.
The detailed version
- Morris v. City Of New York · No. 1:20-cv-09314
- George Daniels
- Sept. 29, 2021
Background
Jomonni Morris sued the City of New York, Department of Corrections officials, correction officers, and unidentified defendants. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and under state law. The parties agreed that Morris was a pretrial detainee, so the court evaluated his federal claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Morris alleged that correction officers had revived an earlier inmate-enforcement scheme under the name “World Tour.” According to the complaint, officers allegedly used selected inmates to harass, discipline, and assault other inmates. Morris alleged that he was placed on the “World Tour,” attacked in February 2020 and April 2020, denied or delayed medical assistance, falsely accused of possessing contraband, and subjected to photographs of his injuries being posted online.
Motions and exhaustion issue
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). They also asked the court to sever and convert their challenge based on failure to exhaust prison administrative remedies into a motion for summary judgment.
The court denied the motion to sever and convert. It explained that exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act is an affirmative defense rather than something Morris was required to plead in his complaint. The defendants’ challenge, without more, did not justify converting the issue into a summary-judgment motion.
Federal claims
The court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. It held that Morris failed to plausibly allege deliberate indifference to his safety or medical needs. Such a claim required allegations showing both a sufficiently serious deprivation and that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference, meaning conscious disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm.
The court found that the complaint improperly grouped defendants together and often did not identify which person took which action. It therefore dismissed the claims against Ogburn-Suares, Qayyum, Cummings, Simon, Brooks, Jiggetts, and White for failing to allege their personal involvement in constitutional violations.
The court separately dismissed the claims against Covington. The complaint did not provide facts plausibly showing that Covington personally reinstated or participated in the “World Tour.” It also did not sufficiently connect Covington to the February attack or allege facts showing that the March incident exposed Morris to a known and substantial risk of serious harm that Covington consciously disregarded.
The claims against the Doe defendants also failed. Morris did not adequately allege their personal involvement in the February incident, and he did not allege that he requested medical help from them or that they knew he needed it after the April attack. The court also treated Morris’s failure-to-intervene theory as a deliberate-indifference-to-safety claim and concluded that it failed for the same reasons.
The court dismissed the claims against Brann and Jennings because the complaint relied on their supervisory positions and conclusory allegations that they knew about, approved, or encouraged the “World Tour.” The complaint did not adequately allege that either official was personally involved in a constitutional violation. The court also found no sufficient connection between the alleged policy limiting searches and the “World Tour” or Morris’s injuries.
The court dismissed the claim against the City under the municipal-liability framework established by Monell. Morris did not plausibly allege a city policy, custom, or practice that was the driving force behind a constitutional violation. The court found that the alleged “World Tour” was not adequately supported by facts and that the allegations about limited searches and security were too general and were not sufficiently connected to Morris’s injuries.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Because Morris failed to state a § 1983 claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—and dismissed any state-law claims. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions. It also stated that Morris could seek leave to amend by letter application, with a proposed amended complaint, by October 29, 2021, if amendment would not be futile.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.