MacNeal v. The State of New York

Background

Kelly MacNeal, who is proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3), and 1986; the Fair Housing Act; what the court understood to be Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and state law. She seeks damages. The defendants include the State of New York, the City of New York, the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), the New York City Police Department (NYPD), the New York City Fire Department’s Emergency Medical Service (FDNY’s EMS), several identified employees and officers, and two unidentified FDNY emergency medical technicians.

MacNeal had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because of that status, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented litigants’ complaints liberally, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Rulings on the Agencies

The court dismissed MacNeal’s claims against the DHR under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 because the DHR is a State of New York agency and the claims against it were redundant of the claims against the State.

The court also dismissed MacNeal’s claims against the NYPD and FDNY’s EMS for failure to state a claim. The court held that these are City of New York agencies, not separate entities that can be sued. The opinion did not decide whether MacNeal’s underlying factual or legal allegations against the individual defendants were valid.

Service and Identification of Defendants

Because MacNeal was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, she may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve process. The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, prepare service forms, and provide the necessary documents so the Marshals Service can serve the State of New York and the City of New York.

The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses issue. If service does not occur within that period, MacNeal should request an extension of time.

The court also ordered the New York State Attorney General to provide service addresses for the identified DHR defendants. It ordered the City Corporation Counsel to provide service addresses for the identified NYPD defendants and the identities, if possible shield numbers, and service addresses for the two unidentified FDNY defendants. That information must be provided to the court and MacNeal within 60 days of the order.

MacNeal must file an amended complaint within 30 days after receiving the information. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint and, if necessary, issue another order concerning service on the individual defendants.

Conclusion

The court dismissed MacNeal’s claims against the DHR, dismissed her claims against the NYPD and FDNY’s EMS for failure to state a claim, and directed service of the complaint on the State of New York and the City of New York. The court also ordered officials to provide information needed to identify and serve the individual defendants. Judge Lorna G. Schofield certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.