Thompson v. Lemon

Background

KWAINE THOMPSON, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this prisoner civil-rights action against Captain Lemon, the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction Commissioner, wardens, deputy wardens, captains, correction officers, and unknown defendants. He alleged that his federal constitutional rights and his rights under state and city laws were violated in January and February 2023 while he was detained at the George R. Vierno Center and West Facility on Rikers Island. He sought money damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.

Thompson’s complaint was 90 pages long, typed in all capital letters, and accompanied by 232 pages of exhibits. The court also understood the complaint to assert claims for three other detainees. Thompson had permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, so the court screened the complaint under federal prisoner-screening laws.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a person who is not a lawyer may represent only himself and may not assert claims belonging to other people. It therefore dismissed any claims Thompson was attempting to bring for the other detainees, without prejudice to those individuals pursuing their own claims.

The court also found that the complaint did not comply with the requirement for a short and plain statement of the facts showing entitlement to relief. The court identified its length, unnecessary details, all-capital-letter format, and voluminous attachments as problems. It directed Thompson to provide clear facts explaining what each defendant did or failed to do, when and where the events occurred, what injuries he suffered, and what relief he sought. The court emphasized that he did not need to submit evidence at this stage.

The court further determined that Thompson appeared to be asserting unrelated claims against different defendants concerning events at two different facilities. It allowed related claims to proceed in an amended complaint but directed that unrelated claims involving different defendants and different facilities be brought in separate actions. The court also cautioned him not to reassert claims raised in pending cases.

Ruling and instructions

The court granted Thompson leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so any facts or claims from the original complaint that Thompson wished to retain had to be repeated. He was required to identify each defendant in the caption and explain that person’s involvement, using “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if necessary. No summons would issue at that time.

The court stated that if Thompson failed to file a compliant amended complaint within the allotted time and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to comply with the order. 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. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.