Samuels v. New York City

Background

Justin Samuels, proceeding without a lawyer, sued New York City over the City’s Women’s Film Fund. Samuels alleged that the program discriminates against men, provides grants exclusively to women and male-to-female transgender artists, and excluded him because of his gender and sexual orientation. He described himself as a gay Black male screenwriter and filmmaker born in New York. He sought damages and an injunction requiring the City to stop discriminating against men and change the program’s name.

New York City moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the court lacks authority to hear a case. The City argued that Samuels lacked standing, meaning a sufficient personal stake in the dispute.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a person challenging an allegedly discriminatory program ordinarily must show that he applied to the program. If applying would have been futile, he may instead show that he was ready and able to apply but that the discriminatory policy prevented him from applying on equal terms.

The court found that Samuels’s complaint did neither. It did not allege that he had applied for a grant. It also did not allege that applying would have been futile or that he was ready and able to apply. The complaint did not identify the grant requirements or explain whether Samuels currently met them. The court found that the cases Samuels cited did not support his position because the plaintiffs in those cases had applied or had plausibly alleged that they were ready and able to apply.

The court added that, if New York City residency is required, Samuels could not establish standing unless he currently resides in New York or has concrete plans to move there soon enough to qualify and apply. The court also stated that a general future intention to apply would not be enough.

Disposition

The court granted New York City’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. The court allowed Samuels to amend if he could do so truthfully. An amended complaint could allege that he previously applied for a grant or that applying would be futile and that he was ready and able to apply. The court directed him to include supporting facts, such as the program’s advertising, its requirements, past grant recipients, and facts showing that he satisfies the program’s other requirements. Any amendment had to be filed by August 26, 2024. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 15.