Muniz v. McCall
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-04224
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Muniz v. McCall, Judge Torres dismissed claims against New York City’s Law Department but allowed the case to proceed against the other named defendants.
The order dismissed only the claims against the defendant identified as “NYC Corporate City Attorney, Attorney for the City of New York,” which the court understood to be the New York City Law Department. The remaining named defendants and Jose Lewis Muniz were affected by the court’s service-related directives.
What happened
In Muniz v. McCall, Jose Lewis Muniz, representing himself, sued correctional and city defendants under a federal civil-rights law, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening requirements that apply to people allowed to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
The court dismissed Muniz’s claims against “NYC Corporate City Attorney, Attorney for the City of New York,” which it understood to mean the New York City Law Department. It explained that a New York City agency generally cannot be sued as a separate entity. The order did not dismiss the claims against the other named defendants.
Judge Torres directed the Clerk of Court to remove that defendant from the case and notified the New York City Department of Correction and Law Department that the defendants must state within two weeks whether they will accept service of the summons. The order also told Muniz about a free legal clinic for people representing themselves.
The detailed version
- Muniz v. McCall · No. 1:23-cv-04224
- Analisa Torres
- June 26, 2023
Background
Jose Lewis Muniz, who was detained at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state or local actors for alleged constitutional violations. He represented himself and named Correction Officer McCall, Captain Adams, Warden Antinet Corts, “NYC Corporate City Attorney, Attorney for the City of New York,” and the City of New York as defendants. The opinion notes that the correct spelling of one defendant’s name may be “Antoinette Cort.”
An earlier order allowed Muniz to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The court then screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to review prisoner complaints against governmental entities or employees. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. It must also read self-represented filings generously while requiring enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.
Ruling
The court dismissed Muniz’s claims against “NYC Corporate City Attorney, Attorney for the City of New York.” The court understood that designation to refer to the New York City Law Department and held that a New York City agency is not an entity that can generally be sued separately. The conclusion cited 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), although the opinion’s text contains an apparent typographical error in that citation.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate that defendant from the case. It also directed electronic notice of the order to the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department and ordered the defendants to tell the court within two weeks whether they would waive service of the summons. The order did not state that the claims against the other named defendants were dismissed.
Other Information
The court informed Muniz about the New York Legal Assistance Group’s Clinic for Pro Se Litigants, a free clinic that provides limited assistance to people representing themselves in civil cases in the Southern District of New York. The order stated that the clinic does not file papers for litigants and that Muniz would remain responsible for his case if he used the clinic’s assistance.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.