Fredricks v. Parilla

Background

Nigel Fredricks, who was incarcerated at the Vernon C. Bain Center and representing himself, filed this action without prepaying the filing fee under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that his constitutional rights were violated while he was detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center.

In the original complaint, Fredricks alleged that he twice gave Correction Officer Jane Parilla documents to mail to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in an earlier related proceeding. A clerk of that court told him that the documents had not been received. Fredricks alleged that Parilla deliberately failed to mail the documents and that the failure was retaliatory, but he did not explain why Parilla would retaliate against him.

The court previously ordered Fredricks to amend his complaint. It treated the allegations as claims under the First Amendment for interference with legal mail and retaliation. The court noted that the appeal involved a nonfinal order and that Fredricks had not shown that the alleged conduct prevented him from pursuing a meritorious legal matter. The amended complaint repeated the allegations and added the warden of the Metropolitan Detention Center as a defendant.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the amended complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to dismiss certain prisoner complaints that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or otherwise fall within the statute’s dismissal standards.

The court found that the amended complaint had the same deficiencies as the original pleading. Fredricks did not show that he was prevented from litigating a meritorious legal matter. He also did not provide facts showing that either defendant tampered with his mail or retaliated against him. Because Fredricks had already received an opportunity to amend and the defects could not be cured by another amendment, the court declined to grant further leave to amend.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Fredricks a copy of the order and record service on the docket.