Roque v. Annucci

Background

Apolinar Roque, who is incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Anthony Annucci, Joseph Sergeant, and two unidentified officers. He alleged that the defendants denied him the opportunity to attend a Jumah prayer service during Ramadan, violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

The complaint originally involved 30 incarcerated people who sought to proceed as a group. The court previously separated their claims into individual cases and explained that each person would need to state his own facts, including when the denial occurred, how he was affected, and what steps he took to challenge it. The complaint in Roque’s case, however, was written from the perspective of Byron K. Brown, the lead plaintiff in the original filing. It did not provide facts about Roque’s own experience.

Screening and religious-freedom claims

The court explained that federal law requires screening of complaints filed by incarcerated people against governmental entities or their officers. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek damages from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by self-represented parties liberally, those filings still must provide enough factual detail to make the claims plausible.

The court described the legal standards for Roque’s religious-freedom theories. Under the First Amendment, a plaintiff must allege that government officials significantly interfered with his religious beliefs. Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the plaintiff must allege that the government substantially burdened his religious exercise. The court did not decide whether Roque could ultimately satisfy either standard because the complaint did not describe Roque’s own circumstances.

Leave to amend

The court granted Roque leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. It directed him to state whether he registered as a Muslim with the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, requested to attend the April 14, 2023 Jumah service, was denied access, filed a grievance, and previously participated in Muslim religious services or events. The amended complaint must also identify relevant people and their actions, provide approximate dates and locations, describe injuries, and state the relief requested.

The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so Roque must repeat any facts or claims he wants the court to consider. No summons will issue at this time. The court warned that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the deadline, absent good cause, could result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Request for counsel and other matters

Roque’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice because the case was too early for the court to assess its merits. The court said it would decide later whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. It also informed Roque about a legal clinic that may provide limited assistance to people representing themselves, while explaining that the clinic is not part of the court.

Disposition

The court granted leave to amend, denied the request for counsel without prejudice, and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal from this order. The opinion states that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.