Barry v. Russo
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-03835
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 32
In Barry v. Russo, Judge Karas partly granted and partly denied dismissal motions, preserving some claims and dismissing others without prejudice.
Mamadou Barry’s claims against Polanco, Royce, and Russo were partly allowed to proceed and partly dismissed without prejudice; Ramdeen remained subject to service, and the New York State Office of the Attorney General and U.S. Marshals Service received service-related directives.
What happened
In Barry v. Russo, Mamadou Barry, a prisoner representing himself, alleged that New York prison officials failed to protect him from an assault, ignored his medical and living needs, denied him religious meals, and issued a false disciplinary report. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the claims against them.
The court denied dismissal of Barry’s religious-meals claim against Polanco, Royce, and Russo and his failure-to-protect claim against Royce and Russo. It granted dismissal of his conditions-of-confinement, false disciplinary-report, and failure-to-train-or-supervise claims, all without prejudice, meaning Barry may try to amend them. The court also granted Barry’s request for information needed to serve Ramdeen.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ruled that Barry had plausibly alleged some constitutional claims but had not provided enough facts for the others. He gave Barry thirty days to file an amended complaint and directed the New York State Attorney General’s Office to provide Ramdeen’s service address.
The detailed version
- Barry v. Russo · No. 7:22-cv-03835
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 5, 2024
Background
Mamadou Barry, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Anthony C. Russo, Mary Royce, Sergeant Polanco, and Sookdew Ramdeen. Barry alleged that he received threatening notes before a December 16, 2020 assault in his cell, suffered serious facial injuries, and did not receive prompt medical assistance. He also alleged that prison officials subjected him to poor cell conditions, denied him meals consistent with his Rastafarian faith for at least thirty-eight days, displayed photographs of his injuries, issued a false misbehavior report, and failed to properly train or supervise subordinates.
The court considered motions to dismiss filed by Polanco and by Royce and Russo. Ramdeen had not been served. Barry also requested an order requiring the New York State Office of the Attorney General to provide the U.S. Marshals Service with information needed to serve Ramdeen.
Claims That Survived Dismissal
The court denied dismissal of Barry’s First Amendment religious-meals claim against Polanco, Royce, and Russo. Barry alleged that he is Rastafarian, had a religious diet card, explained his dietary requirements, and was denied meals consistent with his faith for at least thirty-eight days. The court held that these allegations plausibly stated a claim that his religious practice was burdened without a legitimate prison-related reason.
The court also denied Royce and Russo’s motion to dismiss Barry’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim. Barry alleged that he repeatedly told them about specific threatening notes, provided Russo with some of the notes, requested an investigation and a transfer for safety, and was later assaulted in a manner consistent with the threats. The court found those allegations sufficient at the pleading stage.
Claims Dismissed
The court granted dismissal of Barry’s Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against Polanco, Royce, and Russo. Barry alleged cold cells, broken windows, inadequate bedding, an unflushable toilet in one cell, confinement without recreation, and denial of religious meals. The court did not decide whether these conditions were sufficiently serious because it found that Barry had not adequately alleged that these defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety. The dismissal was without prejudice.
The court granted Polanco’s motion to dismiss the claim based on the allegedly false misbehavior report. The court explained that a false report generally does not violate the Constitution unless the prisoner was disciplined without adequate procedural protections or the report was issued in retaliation for exercising a constitutional right. Barry alleged that he was denied the opportunity to attend and testify at the disciplinary hearing, but the hearing report stated that he refused to attend, and Barry did not allege what disciplinary action resulted from the report. This claim was dismissed without prejudice.
The court granted dismissal of Barry’s failure-to-train-or-supervise claim against Polanco and Royce. Barry offered only general statements that they failed to train or supervise subordinates, without identifying how they failed to do so or which subordinates were involved. The court dismissed this claim without prejudice so Barry could add clarifying allegations.
Service on Ramdeen
The court granted Barry’s request concerning service. It directed the New York State Office of the Attorney General to provide the court with a service address for Ramdeen within thirty days. The U.S. Marshals Service must then serve Ramdeen within thirty days after receiving the address. Barry’s original request concerning Royce and Russo was moot because those defendants had already been served.
Disposition
The court stated that Polanco’s motion and Royce and Russo’s motion were each granted in part and denied in part, and that Barry’s service request was granted. The surviving claims were not finally decided; they were allowed to proceed past the dismissal stage. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice. Judge Kenneth M. Karas gave Barry thirty days to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The court warned that claims dismissed without prejudice could be dismissed with prejudice if Barry did not meet that deadline.
Read the full 32-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.