Pena-Sanchez v. New York City
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-04942
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Pena-Sanchez v. New York City, Judge Swain dismissed the amended complaint but allowed Augustin Pena-Sanchez to replead only his own assault claim.
Augustin Pena-Sanchez’s claims against New York City and the New York City Department of Correction; the order also rejected claims he attempted to bring on behalf of Andre Antrobus.
What happened
In Augustin Pena-Sanchez v. New York City and Department of Correction, Augustin Pena-Sanchez sued under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that correction officers assaulted him, used racial slurs, restricted his access to legal resources and mail, and allowed gang members to assault him. He represented himself and was incarcerated when he filed the case.
The court dismissed the previously asserted claims concerning law-library and mail access and property, relying on its earlier order. It also dismissed any claims Pena-Sanchez tried to bring for another detainee, Andre Antrobus, because a person representing himself cannot litigate someone else’s claims. The court allowed Pena-Sanchez to try again on his own assault claim because he had not identified individual defendants or explained how they were personally involved.
On May 11, 2023, Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the amended complaint and granted Pena-Sanchez leave to replead only his assault claim on his own behalf. He was given 60 days to file a second amended complaint; the court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Pena-Sanchez v. New York City · No. 1:22-cv-04942
- Laura Swain
- May 11, 2023
Background
Augustin Pena-Sanchez, who was incarcerated at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island, filed the case without a lawyer and without prepaying the filing fee. He sued New York City and the New York City Department of Correction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by state actors.
The original complaint alleged that correction officers assaulted Pena-Sanchez and used racial slurs against him at the Queens County Supreme Court. It also alleged that correction officers at Rikers Island denied him access to the law library and his mail. The complaint referred to another detainee, Andre Antrobus, who allegedly had similar experiences.
In an earlier order, the court severed and transferred claims arising from the alleged courthouse assault, directed Pena-Sanchez to amend claims arising at Rikers Island, dismissed claims against the Department of Correction because the court determined it was not a suable entity, and required more facts supporting claims against New York City or personally involved individuals. The court also dismissed property-destruction claims and required more facts for the law-library and mail claims.
Court’s Analysis
The amended complaint again named New York City and the Department of Correction and repeated the earlier First Amendment and property claims. The court dismissed those claims for the reasons stated in its earlier order.
The amended complaint newly alleged that correction officers enabled gang members to assault Pena-Sanchez and Antrobus. The court dismissed any claims brought on behalf of Antrobus because a person representing himself may litigate only his own interests, not another person’s claims. The opinion states that Pena-Sanchez had not alleged facts showing that he was an attorney.
The court treated Pena-Sanchez’s own assault allegation as an excessive-force claim under Section 1983. Such a claim requires facts showing a violation of a federal right by a state actor and the direct, personal involvement of each defendant. The court found that Pena-Sanchez did not explain exactly what happened, identify individual defendants, or provide facts showing how any defendant was personally involved. The court therefore granted leave to replead the assault claim.
Disposition
The court dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the provision used to screen complaints filed without prepaying fees when they fail to state a claim. It granted leave to replead only the assault claim brought by Pena-Sanchez on his own behalf. The court instructed him to file a second amended complaint within 60 days, using the required case number and form. It stated that failure to file a timely amendment, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.