Mustafa v. New York City

Background

Marwan T. Mustafa filed this self-represented lawsuit seeking money damages. He alleged that, while he was a pretrial detainee on Rikers Island between May 26 and June 25, 2023, correctional staff retaliated against him for helping another detained person, Andre Antrobus. Mustafa also alleged that staff arranged assaults against him, interfered with his mail, and seized favorable evidence. He described head and back trauma, lack of medical attention, and mental and emotional anguish.

The court treated the complaint as raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing damages claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials, as well as possible state-law claims. Because Mustafa was a prisoner proceeding without prepaying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under federal prisoner-screening laws.

Claims on Behalf of Andre Antrobus

The court dismissed without prejudice any claims Mustafa sought to bring on Antrobus’s behalf. The court explained that a self-represented person generally may litigate only his or her own interests, and Mustafa had not alleged that he was an attorney.

Claims Against the Department of Correction and New York City

The court dismissed Mustafa’s claims against the Department of Correction for failure to state a claim because the Department is an agency of New York City and is not a separate entity that can be sued.

The court found that Mustafa had not adequately pleaded a § 1983 claim against New York City. A municipality is not liable merely because one of its employees allegedly committed wrongdoing; the plaintiff must allege that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court granted Mustafa leave to amend by adding facts about the City’s involvement. The order stated that, if he sought relief against the City, he should name the City as a defendant.

Claims Against Unidentified Individuals

The court understood Mustafa’s reference to “unnamed persons” as an attempt to sue individual correctional staff under § 1983. Such a claim requires facts showing each person’s direct and personal involvement. Because Mustafa did not identify or describe any individual officer or explain what each officer did, the court granted leave to amend by naming the individual officers and describing their personal involvement.

Mail, Evidence, and Access to Courts

The court construed Mustafa’s allegations about blocked mail and confiscated evidence as possible claims for denial of access to the courts and general mail tampering. It found that he had not alleged facts showing that staff prevented him from pursuing a nonfrivolous legal claim or caused actual harm to such litigation. The court also found that his allegations about opened, damaged, and blocked mail did not provide enough facts to show the regular and unjustified interference required for a mail-tampering claim.

The court granted leave to amend these claims. It directed Mustafa to identify the correctional staff involved and provide facts showing either that he was hindered from pursuing an arguably meritorious legal claim for which he lacked representation, or that the mail interference was regular and unjustified.

Retaliation and Failure to Protect

The court treated Mustafa’s allegations about helping Antrobus and then being assaulted as possible First Amendment retaliation and failure-to-protect claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. It found the retaliation allegations insufficient because Mustafa did not identify protected conduct, explain the connection between that conduct and the alleged adverse actions, or identify the people who retaliated against him.

The court also found the failure-to-protect allegations insufficient. Mustafa did not identify an officer personally involved, provide specific facts supporting his assertion that an officer ordered assaults, or describe when, where, and how the assaults occurred. The court granted leave to amend both types of claims.

Order and Amendment Deadline

The court granted Mustafa leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims he wants to preserve must be included again. He must identify the defendants, describe what each person did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. He may use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for unidentified defendants, but the order stated that doing so does not pause the applicable three-year limitations period.

No summonses would issue at that time. If Mustafa did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the court stated that it would issue an order dismissing his claims for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of whether the alleged conduct violated Mustafa’s constitutional rights.