Morris v. City Of New York

Background

Jomonni Morris asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by persons acting under state law, along with claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and New York law. The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a claim. The court allowed Morris to seek permission to amend by letter.

Morris then submitted a proposed second amended complaint. It changed which correction officers allegedly placed him in the “World Tour” program, changed or added allegations concerning assaults in 2020 and April 2021, and added allegations concerning incidents in April and May 2021. The defendants argued that Morris had improperly substituted a new group of officers, acted in bad faith, delayed the case, prejudiced the defendants, and added conclusory allegations that did not cure the prior defects.

Court’s Analysis

Courts generally allow a party to amend a complaint when fairness requires, but may deny permission for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility. An amendment is futile if the proposed complaint could not survive a motion to dismiss.

The court found that the changes between the first amended complaint and the proposed second amended complaint were not so plainly contradictory or improper as to justify denying amendment on that ground. The court also found that the new allegations concerning 2021 incidents did not improperly change the basic focus of the case.

However, the court concluded that, except for the May 2021 allegations, the proposed amendments were futile. Morris did not provide enough detail showing how the proposed defendants personally participated in reinstating the “World Tour” or in the alleged attacks. The allegations that some officers were absent from their posts, that others were nearby, or that some photographed Morris after an assault did not adequately allege that they knowingly permitted the attacks. The court also found that the allegations concerning the April 2021 incident did not sufficiently allege that the identified defendants were present or aware of the attack when it occurred.

For the May 19, 2021 incident, however, Morris alleged that Mangal, Ortiz, and Prey-Green encouraged other inmates to use physical violence against him, knew that his assailant posed an unreasonable risk because of prior incidents, knew about the assailant’s weapon and access to Morris’s cell, and failed to intervene while the assailant attacked Morris in their presence. The court held that these allegations sufficiently stated a viable claim.

Disposition

The court ruled that Morris may file a second amended complaint asserting claims stemming from the May 19, 2021 incident against Mangal, Ortiz, and Prey-Green only. The court otherwise denied his request for leave to file the second amended complaint. This was a ruling on permission to amend the pleadings, not a final determination of whether Morris will ultimately prevail on the permitted claims.