Murray v. City of New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROBERT MURRAY, KNOWN AS LEVITICUS BOFMET LUCFER, DESCENDENT OF HEBREW SLAVES, Plaintiff, 25-CV-3629 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) CITY OF NEW YORK; D.O.C. FOOD SERVICE DEPT.; JOHN DOE, Defendants.

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island, brings this action pro se. Plaintiff also requests to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff is barred, however, from filing any new action IFP while he is a prisoner. See Murray v. City of New York, No. 24-CV-3758 (JGLC) (SDA) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025). That order relied on the “three-strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action [IFP] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.1 The court identified the following dismissals as strikes: Murray v. Gillani, No. 13-952 (2d Cir. May 16, 2013) (dismissing appeal, filed while Plaintiff was a prisoner, as frivolous); Murray v. Nephew, No. 9:12-CV-1783 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2013) (dismissing entire action, filed while Plaintiff was a prisoner, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted); Murray v. Fischer, No. 9:12-CV-1782 (N.D.N.Y. July 31, 2013) (same).

Although Plaintiff has filed this new action seeking IFP status, his complaint does not show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.1 Instead, Plaintiff, who identifies as a Black Hebrew, alleges that his kosher meals “are not being serve[d] in a spiritual – honorable and a noble way.” (ECF 1, at 5.) Plaintiff is therefore barred from filing this action IFP.

CONCLUSION The Court denies Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP, and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice under the PLRA’s “three-strikes” rule. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).2 Plaintiff remains barred from filing any future action IFP while he is in custody, unless he is under imminent threat of serious physical injury.3 Id. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in this action.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2025 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge