Murray v. Pratt

Background

Robert Murray, who identified himself as “LEVITICUS LUCFER,” filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights while he was detained in “C-95/C-71 heart iland.” The opinion states that he was then detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. The court had already granted him permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, although the opinion notes that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee under the applicable statute.

Screening standard

Because Murray was a prisoner proceeding without prepaying fees, 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 subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that it must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make relief plausible.

Rulings on the defendants

The court dismissed Murray’s claims against the Department of Correction because a New York City agency generally cannot be sued as a separate entity. Because the complaint appeared intended to assert claims against New York City, the court directed the Clerk to replace the Department of Correction with the City of New York as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The court stated that this amendment was without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert.

The court also dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction Mental Health Department because it is not a “person” that can be sued under § 1983. In a footnote, the court added that, to the extent Murray meant to sue the New York State Office of Mental Health, those claims would be barred by state immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The opinion’s conclusion separately states that the court dismissed the claims against the Department of Correction Mental Health Department.

Service and unidentified defendants

The complaint named C.O. Pratt, C.O. John Doe, Capt. Jane Doe, Capt. John Doe, and two John Doe deputies. The court found that the complaint provided enough information for the New York City Department of Correction to identify the unidentified defendants. It ordered the New York City Law Department to determine their identities, badge numbers, and addresses for service within 60 days of the order.

Within 30 days after receiving that information, Murray must file an amended complaint naming the unidentified defendants. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court stated that it would screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue another order concerning service. The court requested that the City of New York and C.O. Pratt waive service of summons.

Discovery and appeal

Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this prisoner action. Under that rule, the defendants must serve responses to specified discovery requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.

The court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Murray permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order otherwise set out screening, amendment, identification, service, and discovery procedures; it did not decide the merits of the alleged rights violations.