Benson v. Yellen
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-09673
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Benson v. Yellen, Judge Swain dismissed Elisa M. Benson’s complaint for failing to connect defendants to alleged violations and denied amendment.
Elisa M. Benson’s claims against Daniel P. McCoy and Janet L. Yellen were dismissed, and she was denied permission to amend the complaint or proceed without prepaying fees on appeal.
What happened
In Benson v. Yellen, Elisa M. Benson sued Daniel P. McCoy and Janet L. Yellen over alleged constitutional violations involving child-support arrears, passport and travel restrictions, and human trafficking. She sought $3.4 billion in damages and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
The court interpreted her constitutional claims as claims under a federal civil-rights law, and treated the claim against Yellen under a separate legal theory for suits against federal officials. The court said Benson did not explain how either defendant was personally involved in the alleged wrongdoing and did not mention either defendant in the complaint’s factual allegations.
Judge Swain dismissed the complaint for failure to state a legally sufficient claim and denied Benson permission to amend because the defects could not be fixed by an amended complaint. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Benson v. Yellen · No. 1:23-cv-09673
- Laura Swain
- June 10, 2024
Background
Elisa M. Benson, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a federal-question complaint against Albany County Executive Daniel P. McCoy and United States Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Benson alleged violations involving due process, separation of powers, human trafficking, bills of attainder, child-support obligations, passport and travel restrictions, housing, credit, employment, and alleged trafficking-related conduct. She sought $3.4 billion in damages.
Court’s analysis
Because Benson alleged constitutional violations, the court interpreted her claims against McCoy as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. The court explained that such a claim requires facts showing both a federal-rights violation and the defendant’s personal involvement. A person cannot be held liable merely because that person supervises someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights.
Because Yellen is a federal official, the court interpreted the claim against her under Bivens, a legal theory that can allow damages claims against certain federal officials for constitutional violations. The court noted that personal involvement is also required to the extent such a claim is available.
The court found that Benson did not allege facts showing that either defendant was personally involved in the events underlying her claims. It also noted that she did not refer to either defendant in the body of the complaint. Applying the screening rules for complaints filed without prepayment of fees, the court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
Disposition
The court dismissed Benson’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied leave to amend because she determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying Benson permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The opinion also stated that it was unclear whether Benson was subject to a New York child-support order and described potential New York post-judgment procedures for challenging an error in the amount allegedly owed.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.