Murray v. Department of Law

Background

Robert L. Murray, also known as Leviticus Lucfer, filed a self-represented lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state or local officials for violations of federal rights. He sued the New York City Law Department, police officers, the City of New York, correctional officers and employees, eight unnamed police officers, and other listed defendants. The court had already granted him permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Screening standard

Because Murray was a prisoner seeking relief from government entities and officials, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s authority. Although courts read self-represented complaints generously, the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make the claimed entitlement to relief plausible.

Claims against city agencies

The court dismissed Murray’s claims against the New York City Law Department, the New York City Police Department, and the New York City Department of Correction. It held that agencies of New York City generally are not separate entities that can be sued.

Service on named police officers

Because Murray was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses were issued. It directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Police Officers Notaros, Washack, and Turken, complete the required service forms with their addresses, and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court also warned Murray to notify the court of any address change.

Other defendants and unnamed officers

The court asked the City of New York; C.O. Walker; Michael Delakas; M. Carter, SPO; and C.O. Pratt, C-95, to waive service of summons. It directed the New York City Law Department to identify the names, badge numbers, and service addresses of the eight unnamed police officers within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Murray must file an amended complaint naming those officers. The amended complaint will replace, rather than add to, the original complaint, and the court will screen it after filing.

Discovery and appeal

The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. Under that rule, unless the court orders otherwise, the defendants must respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint.

The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying merits of Murray’s claims against the defendants who remained subject to service or further proceedings.