Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 5, 2023

Forrest v. Warden Renee

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:21-cv-10152
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureCivil RightsPro Se
In one sentence

In Forrest v. City of New York, Judge Subramanian dismissed the remaining claim as moot after Forrest left Rikers Island.

Who this affects

Trevor Forrest’s remaining request for an order requiring religious access at the Rikers Island facility was dismissed as moot; the defendants obtained dismissal of the complaint and the case was closed.

What happened

In Forrest v. City of New York, Trevor Forrest, who was representing himself, claimed that he could not access religious services or the medical clinic at Rikers Island. The court had already dismissed all claims except his request for visits from an imam at his cell for religious instruction, counseling, and prayer.

After Forrest was transferred to Attica Correctional Facility, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the remaining claim because it was no longer a live dispute. Forrest argued that he had been denied access to Friday religious services and sought damages, but the court had already dismissed his damages claims.

Judge Arun Subramanian granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and closed the case. The court ruled that Forrest’s request for an injunction concerning religious access at the former facility was moot because he no longer lived there and said he could access religious services at Attica.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Forrest v. Warden Renee · No. 1:21-cv-10152
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Oct. 5, 2023

Background

Trevor Forrest, proceeding without a lawyer, was a pretrial detainee at George R. Vierno Correctional Center at Rikers Island when he sued the City of New York, Warden Renee, and Captain Carter. He alleged that, while incarcerated there, he could not access religious services or visit the facility’s medical clinic.

The defendants moved to dismiss. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing all of Forrest’s claims except claims seeking prospective injunctive relief—an order requiring future conduct—so that Forrest could receive visits from an imam at his cell for religious instruction, counseling, and prayer. The court adopted that recommendation before the case was reassigned to Judge Arun Subramanian. The court had also previously dismissed claims against the New York City Department of Correction because it was not an entity that could be sued.

Transfer and mootness

After Forrest was transferred from the Rikers Island facility to Attica Correctional Facility, the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that a case becomes moot when the issues are no longer live or the parties no longer have a legally recognized interest in the outcome. A transfer from a facility generally makes a request for injunctive relief against that facility moot.

The court held that Forrest’s only remaining claim concerned access to an imam at the former Rikers Island facility. Because Forrest was no longer incarcerated there, the court dismissed that remaining injunctive-relief claim as moot.

Damages claims and disposition

In opposing dismissal, Forrest referred to being denied access to Friday religious services and requested $3 million in damages. The court stated that all damages claims had already been dismissed. The earlier ruling explained that Forrest’s damages claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act because he alleged only emotional injury, and that damages were unavailable under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act on the allegations presented. The court found no reason to revisit that earlier determination.

Judge Arun Subramanian granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.