Endeley v. New York City

Background

Saint Jermaine Endeley, who was detained at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center when the order was issued, filed a self-represented lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court understood the complaint to allege violations of federal constitutional rights by the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, and unidentified officers. Endeley said the events occurred on February 7, 2023, at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island.

Endeley referred to alleged violations involving another detainee, Andre Antrobus, and suggested that officials retaliated against him for helping Antrobus. As to Endeley himself, the complaint alleged denied or opened mail, seizure of favorable evidence, assaults by correction officers, assaults by other detainees allegedly encouraged by officers, unnecessary chemical spray, and a cover-up. He sought money damages.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s required screening of a prisoner’s complaint. Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also applied the pleading rule requiring enough factual detail to make a claim plausible, while reading self-represented pleadings liberally.

Claims concerning Andre Antrobus

The court dismissed any claims Endeley asserted on behalf of Antrobus. Because Endeley had not alleged that he was an attorney, he could represent only his own legal interests and could not litigate another person’s claims.

Endeley’s individual claims

The court found that the allegations about mail did not state a viable access-to-courts claim. Endeley did not identify a nonfrivolous legal claim that had been hindered, describe an actual injury to his litigation, or explain why counsel could not raise the relevant issues in his pending criminal case. The court also found that the allegations about mail tampering lacked facts showing when, how often, or by whom the mail was denied or opened, or that the alleged interference was regular and unjustified. The court granted leave to amend these claims by identifying the involved officers and adding facts.

The court dismissed the property claim because Endeley did not allege that New York’s available state remedies for lost or seized property were inadequate. The court granted leave to add facts about the alleged bathroom assault for an excessive-force claim. It also granted leave to amend the failure-to-protect claim because Endeley did not identify an individual officer or official, provide facts supporting the allegation that officers paid or employed other detainees to assault him, or describe when, where, and how the assaults occurred.

The court found that the retaliation allegations did not state a viable First Amendment retaliation claim. Endeley did not explain what protected activity he performed while assisting Antrobus or provide facts connecting that activity to the alleged adverse actions. The court granted leave to add those facts, including the dates of the alleged assistance and the connection between that assistance and the alleged violations.

Claims against the Department of Correction and the City

The court dismissed Endeley’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction because a New York City agency generally cannot be sued separately. The court stated that those claims would be treated as claims against the City of New York.

To state a Section 1983 claim against the City, Endeley had to allege that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court found that the complaint did not allege facts showing such a policy, custom, or practice, but granted leave to amend to plead facts supporting municipal liability.

Disposition

The court granted Endeley 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and had to identify the individuals involved, describe what each person did, provide relevant dates and locations, describe injuries, and state the relief sought. The order warned that, absent timely compliance or good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons issued at that time. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.