Anduze v. City of New York

Background

Johmanni Anduze, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York and 39 employees. He alleged that, while he was held before trial at the George R. Vierno Center at Rikers Island, the facility imposed unreasonable restrictions and inhumane living conditions through Command Level Order 370.20 and a May 15, 2020 Judicial Lockdown Order. He also alleged that Command Level Order 370.20 violated minimum standards established by the New York City Board of Correction.

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and review

The defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Katharine Parker, who issued a 53-page Report and Recommendation. She recommended that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. Neither side filed objections, despite notice that failing to object could waive further judicial review. Judge Gardephe therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error on the record rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed portions.

Ruling

Judge Gardephe agreed with Judge Parker that the complaint did not adequately allege the personal involvement of Scott, Jennings, Grossman, Morales, Matos, Blair, Keys, Rodriguez, Stukes, Brann, and Rene. The order states that Anduze’s claims against those defendants would be dismissed.

The order also adopted the recommendation that all remaining claims be dismissed except claims alleging that:

- Hickson, Young, Molina, and Rodriguez improperly censored Anduze’s legal mail, violating the First and Sixth Amendments; - Ritter and Hickson prevented confidential communications with Anduze’s attorney, violating the Sixth Amendment; - Young retaliated against Anduze for refusing to assault another inmate, violating the First Amendment; and - Law and Dychese placed Anduze in enhanced restraints during exercise, violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The order further states that the municipal-liability claim against the City and Dunbar was adequately pleaded insofar as it concerned the alleged policy or practice of using enhanced restraints during recreation and restricting access to legal mail.

Judge Gardephe adopted Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion. The Clerk was also directed to terminate all defendants except the City, Hickson, Young, Molina, Rodriguez, Ritter, Law, Dychese, and Dunbar.

Disposition and classification

This was a Rule 12 motion-to-dismiss ruling, granted in part and denied in part through adoption of the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Under the site’s classification rules, it is a procedural order because the court evaluated whether the claims were adequately pleaded rather than deciding the ultimate merits of the constitutional allegations.