Murray v. Dabo
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-04026
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Murray v. Dabo, Judge Caproni granted summary judgment to the defendants on Murray’s constitutional-rights claims.
Robert Murray’s constitutional-rights claims against Sidiki Dabo and Eguagie Ehimwenma were resolved against him; the defendants received summary judgment, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Murray v. Dabo, Robert Murray, representing himself, sued Sidiki Dabo and Eguagie Ehimwenma under a federal civil-rights law over alleged constitutional violations while he was committed at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center.
The defendants’ motion was converted to a request for summary judgment because it included evidence outside the complaint. The court found that Murray received adequate notice but did not respond with evidence. It agreed that his claims could not succeed: the Eighth Amendment claims were unavailable because he had not been convicted of a crime, and the evidence did not support the possible Fourteenth Amendment claims involving medication, an alleged sexual assault, testimony at a treatment hearing, or removal of his wheelchair.
Judge Valerie Caproni adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, directed that the motion be terminated, and ordered the case closed.
The detailed version
- Murray v. Dabo · No. 1:22-cv-04026
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 5, 2024
Background
Robert Murray, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Sidiki Dabo and Eguagie Ehimwenma under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional rights while he was committed at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint or, alternatively, for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule based on the record when there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial.
The defendants submitted evidence outside the pleadings, including a statement of undisputed facts. Murray said he intended to oppose the motion, and the court granted him multiple extensions, but he did not submit an opposition memorandum or a sworn response to the defendants’ factual statement. Magistrate Judge Stein recommended converting the motion to summary judgment and granting it in full. Neither side objected.
Conversion to Summary Judgment
Judge Caproni reviewed the recommendation for clear error because no party objected. She concluded that converting the motion was proper. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion presenting material outside the pleadings generally must be treated as a summary-judgment motion, and the parties must have a reasonable opportunity to present relevant material.
The court also found that Murray received the required unequivocal notice of the consequences of conversion. He received the local notice for self-represented litigants at least twice, including once after telling the court that he had lost his legal papers. The court therefore found no clear error in the recommendation to convert the motion.
Merits of the Claims
The court agreed with the recommendation that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. It held that Murray’s Eighth Amendment claims were unavailable because he was being held at Kirby before he had been convicted of a crime.
The court also agreed with Magistrate Judge Stein’s construction of the complaint as potentially asserting Fourteenth Amendment claims based on four matters: the involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs; an alleged sexual assault on April 20, 2022; alleged untruthful testimony by Dabo at a treatment-over-objection hearing; and removal of Murray’s wheelchair. The court stated that the uncontested record evidence showed that each possible basis for a Fourteenth Amendment claim failed as a matter of law.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Caproni adopted the report and recommendation in full and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The order states that Murray’s failure to object precluded appellate review under the cited rules and precedent. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Murray, terminate the pending motion, and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.