Pridgen v. Iland Jail
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-02294
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Pridgen v. Iland Jail, Judge Ramos dismissed claims against two jail entities, added New York City, and ordered service on remaining defendants.
Marcel Lamont Pridgen; the claims against “Iland Jail” and “Rikers Iland Jail”; the City of New York, which was added as a defendant; and the intake officer from whom the court requested waiver of service.
What happened
In Pridgen v. Iland Jail, Marcel Lamont Pridgen brought a civil-rights lawsuit under federal law while representing himself and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The court screened his complaint as required for prisoner lawsuits.
The court dismissed Pridgen’s claims against “Iland Jail” and “Rikers Iland Jail,” ruling that those facilities are not legally recognized defendants under the civil-rights law he invoked. Because the complaint appeared intended to assert claims against New York City, the court directed the clerk to add the City as a defendant.
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the clerk to notify the relevant city agencies and requested that New York City and the intake officer waive formal service of the lawsuit. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Pridgen v. Iland Jail · No. 1:22-cv-02294
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 6, 2022
Background
Marcel Lamont Pridgen, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, filed this self-represented lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against a person who violates constitutional or federal rights while acting under state law. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen the complaint. At this stage, the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that it would read a self-represented complaint generously, while still requiring enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.
Rulings
The court dismissed Pridgen’s claims against “Iland Jail” and “Rikers Iland Jail” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It held that those jail entities were not “persons” that could be sued under § 1983.
Because the court found a clear intention to assert claims against the City of New York, it construed the complaint as including claims against the City and directed the clerk to add the City as a defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The court stated that this addition was without prejudice to any defenses the City might later assert.
The clerk was directed to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department. The court requested that the City of New York and the first-shift NIC intake officer waive service of summons. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition
The claims against “Iland Jail” and “Rikers Iland Jail” were dismissed. The City of New York was added as a defendant, and the court requested waiver of service from the City and the intake officer. The order did not resolve the merits of Pridgen’s underlying constitutional claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.