Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 9, 2023

Forrest v. Warden Renee

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:21-cv-10152
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Motion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Forrest v. Warden Renee, Judge Liman partly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and kept limited claims against Warden Renee and Captain Carter alive.

Who this affects

Trevor Forrest’s claims against the City of New York were dismissed, as were claims concerning access to congregate religious services or the health clinic. Limited claims against Warden Renee and Captain Carter concerning an imam and injunctive relief remained.

What happened

In Forrest v. Warden Renee, the defendants asked the court to dismiss Trevor Forrest’s complaint. A magistrate judge recommended granting that motion in part, and no party objected within the allowed time.

The court dismissed all of Forrest’s claims against the City of New York. It also dismissed claims based on the individual defendants’ alleged refusal to let him attend group religious services or visit the health clinic.

Judge Lewis J. Liman adopted the recommendation and granted the motion to dismiss in part. He denied the motion as to Forrest’s remaining civil-rights and religious-land-use claims against Warden Renee and Captain Carter, but only for the alleged refusal to bring an imam to Forrest’s cell and to the extent Forrest sought court-ordered relief rather than money damages.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Forrest v. Warden Renee · No. 1:21-cv-10152
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Mar. 9, 2023

Background

Trevor Forrest sued the City of New York, Warden Renee, and Captain Carter. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. On February 1, 2023, Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses recommended that the motion be granted in part. The parties were given fourteen days to object, but no objections had been filed as of March 8, 2023.

Court’s review

Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.

Ruling

The court granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed all of Forrest’s claims against the City of New York. It also dismissed Forrest’s claims based on the individual defendants’ alleged refusal to allow him to attend congregate religious services or visit the health clinic.

The court denied the motion as to Forrest’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil-rights statute, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act against Warden Renee and Captain Carter, insofar as those claims were based on the alleged refusal to bring an imam to Forrest’s cell for religious instruction, counseling, and prayer, and insofar as Forrest sought injunctive relief rather than damages. The court also directed the clerk to close docket entry 25.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.