Washington v. Darvil

Background

Jeannine Campbell Washington, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action seeking a “cease and desist order” concerning alleged conduct by the defendants. She initially submitted a notice of claim under Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules and later filed an amended complaint without first receiving permission to amend.

The amended complaint named dozens of defendants, including state-court judges, New York City departments and officials, shelters and family residences, police precincts, the 311 operating system, a correctional facility, lawyers, banks, unidentified individuals and companies, Burger King, a church, a real estate company, surety and bond companies, Consolidated Edison, a federal employee with the U.S. Marshals, and the Civilian Complaint Review Board. Washington also listed several entities and her minor children as co-plaintiffs.

The allegations appeared to arise from the removal of Washington’s children from her custody and later events. The complaint referred to alleged searches and seizures, due-process violations, cruel and unusual punishment, disability-law violations, loss of business equipment and profits, physical and medical abuse, discrimination, libel, judicial malpractice, securities fraud, False Claims Act violations, and other legal theories. The opinion states that the complaint included 55 exhibits.

Claims brought for others

The court held that a nonlawyer may represent only her own interests in federal court. It also explained that a nonlawyer parent generally may not represent a child in federal court without a lawyer. Because Washington did not provide information showing that she was an attorney or otherwise authorized to bring claims for others, the court dismissed without prejudice the claims she asserted on behalf of RockSteady Industries International LLC, RockSteady Recordz, RockSteady EatznCaterz, Kustom Catalogue, Kustom Embellishmentz, Millenium Blaze Industries, Bender Bros, the Estate of James Defreitas and all heirs, T.W., J.S., T.J.C., J.I.C., T.S.W., and T.H.C.

Washington’s claims

Because Washington had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute requires dismissal of an applicable complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief.

The court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a complaint to give a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court concluded that Washington’s amended complaint did not meet that requirement. It did not describe what the defendants had done or explain why their conduct violated her rights. Although it cited statutes and legal theories, it did not provide the underlying facts needed to show how those statutes and theories applied. The court therefore dismissed Washington’s claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Motions for immediate relief

Washington moved for preliminary injunctive relief and requested an order requiring defendants to show cause why immediate injunctive relief should not be granted. The court explained that this type of relief requires a showing of likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation combined with a sharply favorable balance of hardships.

Because the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, the court found that Washington had not shown a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions supporting the requested relief. The court denied both the motion for injunctive relief and the request for an order to show cause.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Washington 30 days to file a second amended complaint alleging facts supporting claims brought on her own behalf. The court stated that the new complaint should not include any other plaintiffs and should include underlying facts. If Washington did not file the second amended complaint within the allowed time, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The court’s final dispositions were: Washington’s amended complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), with 30 days’ leave to file a second amended complaint concerning her own claims; claims brought on behalf of the listed entities and individuals were dismissed without prejudice; and the motion for injunctive relief and request for an order to show cause were both denied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Washington’s permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.