Levine v. Fenstermaker

Background

Richie Foster Levine sued Linda Frances Lee Fenstermaker, identified in the opinion as the Regional Director of the New York State Division of Human Rights, in both her individual and official capacities. Levine proceeded without a lawyer. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights by someone acting under state law. His claims alleged violations of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, failure to intervene, retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights, abuse of process, and violation of the Division’s regulations.

Levine alleged that he sent seven complaints to the Division concerning employers that denied him employment. After communications about those complaints, Fenstermaker sent Levine a letter stating that the Division was returning his complaints. The letter also stated that future complaints assessed as lacking a Human Rights Law claim would be returned without processing, and that a previously returned complaint submitted again would not be accepted or acknowledged. Levine alleged that the letter barred him from filing, submitting, or communicating about complaints in the future.

Motion and analysis

Fenstermaker moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief. The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion, but it also considered the letter attached to the complaint.

The court held that the letter did not impose the restriction Levine alleged. According to the court, the letter made clear that the Division would continue to accept and review new complaints and would return only complaints that lacked a valid Human Rights Law claim. The court further stated that the letter did not prohibit Levine from communicating with the Division; it explained only that the Division would not provide additional information about complaints that had already been rejected.

The court concluded that all of Levine’s claims arose from his interpretation of the letter as barring future complaints. Because the attached letter contradicted that interpretation, the court held that all of the claims failed. The opinion also discussed legal standards concerning Section 1983, due process, equal protection, First Amendment retaliation, failure to intervene, abuse of process, and immunity for state officials, but its ruling rested on the court’s conclusion that the letter imposed no filing or communication bar.

Disposition

The court granted Fenstermaker’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the entirety of Levine’s complaint with prejudice, directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Fenstermaker, and directed that the case be closed.