Salaam v. City of New York

Background

Aziz Salaam filed this action without a lawyer, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The opinion says he was being held at the West Facility on Rikers Island and had filed the complaint while held at the Eric M. Taylor Center. He sued the City of New York; Eric Adams, identified as the mayor; the New York City Department of Correction; the warden of the Eric M. Taylor Center; and the commissioner of the Department of Correction.

Salaam alleged that, for more than 30 days, he had requested legal services, access to a law library, and a secure tablet for legal research, filing briefs, and receiving legal updates. He said he made written and verbal requests, complained through correction officials and supervisors, and filed grievances. He alleged that he had been denied complete access to the courts and sought $200,000 in damages, along with an order requiring access to a secure tablet and the law library.

The court treated the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against government actors for violations of federal rights, as well as state-law claims. Because Salaam was a prisoner proceeding without prepaying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and the federal rules governing claims that do not adequately state a legal basis for relief.

Court’s analysis

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

The court also found that Salaam had not adequately pleaded a § 1983 claim against the City. A municipality is not liable merely because one of its employees allegedly did something wrong. The complaint must allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused the constitutional violation. The court found it unclear whether a City policy, including a possible Department of Correction policy concerning tablets or law libraries, caused the alleged violation. Because Salaam was representing himself, the court granted him leave to amend and provide sufficient facts.

Claims against individual defendants. The court explained that a person sued under § 1983 must have been directly and personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation. A supervisor cannot be held liable solely because someone who worked under that supervisor allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. Salaam named individual defendants but did not allege facts showing how any of them was directly and personally involved. The court therefore granted him leave to amend to identify the individuals involved and describe their personal involvement.

Access-to-the-courts claim. The court construed Salaam’s allegations as asserting that Department of Correction officials denied him access to the courts by denying access to a secure tablet and law library. The right of access to the courts includes an adequate opportunity to prepare and present legal claims, but a plaintiff must show actual injury, such as prejudice to a nonfrivolous legal claim. The plaintiff must identify both a valid underlying legal claim and the way the defendants’ actions hindered that claim.

The court found that Salaam had not alleged facts showing that he was pursuing a nonfrivolous underlying claim that had been hindered. It also noted that, if he was represented by a lawyer in his criminal or postconviction proceedings, he had not explained why that lawyer could not present the relevant claims. The court found that he therefore failed to state an access-to-the-courts claim under the First Amendment, but granted leave to amend by naming the individual officials involved and providing facts showing that he was hindered from pursuing an arguably meritorious claim for which he was not represented by counsel.

Disposition and amendment instructions

The court granted Salaam 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and must repeat any facts or claims he wants the court to consider. It must identify the relevant defendants, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, give approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. The court said that unidentified defendants could be named as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe,” but that doing so would not pause the three-year limitations period for § 1983 claims.

No summonses would issue at that time. The court warned that if Salaam did not timely amend and could not show good cause, it would issue an order dismissing the action: the § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim and the state-law claims under the court’s supplemental jurisdiction. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.