Dickerson v. New York City

Background

Jason Dickerson filed this action without a lawyer against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction (DOC), and unidentified individuals. He was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. The court understood the complaint to assert constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims. Dickerson sought money damages for events allegedly occurring at the facility from April 2022 through August 2022 and from December 2022 through July 2023.

Dickerson alleged that correction employees threatened another detainee, Andre Antrobus, interfered with Antrobus’s mail and documents, and subjected Dickerson to assaults, mail interference, property deprivation, denial of medical care, and retaliation because Dickerson assisted Antrobus.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under federal laws requiring review of prisoner complaints against governmental entities or employees. It explained that a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible, while courts must read complaints filed without lawyers liberally.

Claims on behalf of Andre Antrobus. Because Dickerson did not allege that he was a lawyer, he could not represent Antrobus or assert claims belonging to Antrobus. The court dismissed any claims Dickerson asserted on Antrobus’s behalf.

Mail and access-to-courts claims. The court read Dickerson’s allegations about legal mail as potentially asserting First Amendment claims concerning access to courts and mail tampering. It found that Dickerson did not allege a nonfrivolous underlying legal claim that was actually hindered, or explain why counsel could not raise the relevant issues in his criminal proceedings. It also found that the allegations about held and returned mail did not show regular and unjustifiable mail interference, and that Dickerson had not identified the officers involved. The court granted leave to amend these claims with additional facts and the names of the individual DOC officers.

Property claim. The court held that Dickerson had not alleged that available state remedies for the loss of his property were inadequate. It dismissed the property claim for failure to state a claim.

Excessive-force claim. The court treated Dickerson’s allegations that he was punched, stomped, and hit with a mop stick as possible Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims. Because he did not state when the incidents occurred, identify the officers, or describe what each officer did, the court granted leave to provide more facts.

Retaliation claim. The court found that Dickerson had not alleged sufficient facts showing that he engaged in protected conduct, that correction staff took adverse action against him, or that the alleged conduct was connected to his assistance to Antrobus. It therefore found that he had not stated a retaliation claim, but granted leave to amend with facts about the assistance, dates, and causal connection.

Claims against the DOC and New York City. The court dismissed the claims against the DOC because a New York City agency generally cannot be sued separately. The court said those claims would be treated as claims against the City of New York. Dickerson did not allege that a City policy, practice, or custom caused a constitutional violation, but the court granted leave to plead additional facts supporting municipal liability against the City.

Disposition

Judge Swain dismissed Dickerson’s claims against the New York City Department of Correction and claims asserted on behalf of Andre Antrobus. The court also dismissed the property claim for failure to state a claim. It granted Dickerson 60 days to file an amended complaint addressing the access-to-courts, mail-tampering, excessive-force, retaliation, and City-liability allegations and naming the individuals involved. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. No summons would issue at that time. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.