Opinion
22-CV-2324 (VSB)
03-20-2024
ROBERT DEREK LURCH, JR., Plaintiff, v. P.O. ERIC KIM, P.O. AMANDA PSAREAS, JOHN DOE Officers that assisted in detaining and transporting the Plaintiff, DR. JONATHAN HOWARD, K. CARTY, registered nurse, and JOHN DOE Officers that arrested Plaintiff on 40th and 8th Ave. on May 9, 2021 around 7 PM to 745 PM, Defendants.
ORDER
VERNON S. BRODERICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I am in receipt of a letter filed by counsel to Defendants Eric Kim and Amanda Psareas (together, the “City Defendants”), dated March 14, 2024, requesting that I “order Plaintiff to show cause why his in forma pauperis status should not be revoked.” (Doc. 82 at 1.) In support of their request, the City Defendants point to four cases that purportedly count as “strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.:
(1) Lurch v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corrections et al., No. 16-cv-03835 (S.D.N.Y.) (“Strike One”);
(2) Lurch, Jr. v. Fayetteville Police Dep't, 16-CT-3133 (E.D. N.C. ) (“Strike Two”);
(3) Lurch, Jr. v. City of New York, et. al., 18-CV-2379 (S.D.N.Y.) (“Strike Three”); and
(4) Lurch, Jr. v. NYSDOCCS, et al., No. 20-CV-3430 (S.D.N.Y.) (“Strike Four”).(Id. at 2-3.)
Also on March 14, 2024, the Second Circuit issued a decision in Cotton v. Noeth, Nos. 20-1644-pr, 20-2710-pr, 2024 WL 1100314 (2d Cir. Mar. 14, 2024), addressing whether a dismissal pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), constitutes a PLRA strike for failure to state a claim. Because Strikes Two and Three appear to be dismissals under Heck, it is hereby
ORDERED that the City Defendants shall file a supplemental letter, by April 10, 2024, addressing Cotton's impact on Strikes Two and Three.
SO ORDERED.