Antrobus v. Reparations

Background

Andre Antrobus filed a damages action without a lawyer while held at a Rikers Island facility. He named “Reparations,” the City of New York, the State of New York, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and the United States of America. He did not identify the legal basis for his claims. The court understood the complaint as potentially asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against New York State, New York City, and the NYPD, and claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States.

The court understood Antrobus’s allegations to concern three subjects: reparations for the legacy of slavery and injustices suffered by African Americans; his 2022 arrest by NYPD officers in Brooklyn and what appeared to be New York State’s prosecution of him in Kings County Supreme Court; and his conditions of confinement at Rikers Island facilities.

Screening standard

Because Antrobus was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental entities, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. It was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the court was required to read a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make the claims plausible.

Rulings on the defendants

The court dismissed the claims against “Reparations” as frivolous because “Reparations” was not an entity that could be sued.

The court dismissed the claims against the United States. It treated those claims as arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives federal sovereign immunity for certain tort claims. The court ruled that Antrobus had not alleged that he first filed an administrative claim for damages with the appropriate federal entity and received a final written determination, or that six months had passed without such a determination. The court therefore dismissed those claims under sovereign immunity and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the claims under § 1983 against New York State because the Eleventh Amendment generally protected the State from federal-court claims for damages, and the court found no waiver or congressional abrogation of that immunity for these claims.

The court dismissed the claims against the NYPD because, as a City agency, it was not an entity that could be sued. The court also dismissed the § 1983 claims against New York City because Antrobus did not allege facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his federal constitutional rights.

The court noted that Antrobus had not named individual NYPD officers or members of the correctional staffs at Rikers Island facilities, and had not alleged facts showing their direct and personal involvement in constitutional violations. The court granted him leave to amend to name such individuals and allege their personal involvement.

Joinder of claims

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 generally permits multiple defendants to be joined only when the claims arise from the same transaction or series of transactions and share a common legal or factual question. It warned that the arrest and prosecution claims were unrelated to the confinement-condition claims. If Antrobus amended the complaint, he had to choose between pursuing claims arising from the arrest and prosecution or claims arising from conditions at Rikers Island; he could not assert all of those claims in one action. The court also directed him to address why the Southern District of New York was the proper or most appropriate venue if he pursued the arrest and prosecution claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action but granted Antrobus 60 days to file an amended complaint repleading the claims for which the court granted leave. If he did not timely amend or show cause for failing to do so, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing his federal claims and decline to consider the state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.