Murray v. City of New York

Background

Robert Lee Murray, representing himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that officers sexually assaulted him while he was at the Anna M. Kross Center at Rikers Island. He did not identify the officers, instead naming them with Doe designations.

The court ordered Murray to provide the time of day of the alleged incident and either sign a release under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50 or explain why he would not do so. The release would allow the City to obtain sealed Department of Corrections and police records needed to identify the officers. Murray did not provide the release or the requested time information. He also did not appear at the first scheduled pretrial conference, although he later appeared at the rescheduled conference. When he went to the City Law Department’s offices to sign the release, he was arrested after an altercation in the building lobby.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. They also argued that Murray had not adequately alleged a municipal-liability claim against the City. Murray did not file an opposition to the motion, but he made other submissions, requested pro bono counsel, and submitted an amended complaint alleging the same incident without identifying the individual defendants.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied five factors for a Rule 41(b) dismissal: the length of the failure to comply, notice of the consequences, prejudice to the defendants, the balance between docket management and a fair opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction had been considered.

The court found that Murray had failed to comply with the orders since October 2021, for nearly a year and a half. The court and defendants had repeatedly informed him that continued noncompliance could lead to dismissal. The court also found prejudice because the missing release and information prevented the City from identifying the Doe defendants, investigating the alleged incident, preparing an answer, and determining whether the complaint adequately alleged a City policy or practice causing the injury.

The court concluded that Murray had had a fair opportunity to be heard through multiple submissions, a conference, several orders, and the opportunity to amend his complaint. The amended complaint did not cure the problems involving the unidentified officers, the time of the incident, or the allegations against the City.

The court separately stated that Murray did not adequately allege a claim against the City because he did not provide specific facts showing that a City policy or practice caused his injury. The court did not determine the merits of the claims against the unidentified individual defendants because their identities and even the time of the alleged assault remained unclear.

Pro Bono Counsel

The court denied Murray’s request for pro bono counsel. It explained that volunteer counsel should be requested sparingly and that, at this early stage, the court could not determine whether the claims had merit or what factual issues would be disputed. The defendants had not yet been able to answer the complaint.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. Murray could renew the action within 30 days by providing the City with the required § 160.50 release and filing an amended complaint that identified the individual defendants, stated the time of day of the incident, and adequately alleged a City policy or practice if he continued to pursue a claim against the City. The court denied as moot the request to file an amended complaint and denied the application for appointment of pro bono counsel. If Murray did not complete both required steps by April 26, 2023, the case would be closed.