Harte v. City of New Rochelle

Background

James R. Harte, representing himself, sued the City of New Rochelle and Ortiz, whom the complaint identifies as “an Officer Marshal of the City of New Rochelle.” Harte invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. He alleged that Ortiz executed an eviction warrant in October 2023 at 192 Lyncroft Road in New Rochelle, where Harte had lived with his wife and son. A moving company boxed the family’s possessions and took them to Al’s Moving Storage. Harte alleged that the boxes were not labeled and that property was lost, discarded, or stolen. He estimated the missing property’s value at half a million dollars and sought money damages.

The court had previously granted Harte permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. It therefore screened the complaint under the federal statute governing such cases. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings are read liberally but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Federal claims against Ortiz

The court construed Harte’s allegations as asserting a procedural due-process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A § 1983 claim requires allegations that a constitutional or federal-law right was violated by a person acting under state law.

The court concluded that Harte failed to state a § 1983 due-process claim against Ortiz. The alleged property deprivation was treated as a random and unauthorized act for which a meaningful remedy after the loss can satisfy due process. New York law provides possible post-deprivation remedies, including state-law actions concerning negligence, replevin, or conversion. Harte did not allege that he had pursued state remedies or that those remedies were inadequate. The court therefore found that he failed to state a § 1983 claim against Ortiz.

Federal claim against the City of New Rochelle

A municipality is not liable under § 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly acted wrongfully. The plaintiff must allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused the constitutional violation. The court found that Harte described only a single October 2023 incident and alleged no facts suggesting that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the claimed violation. The complaint therefore failed to state a claim against the City of New Rochelle.

State-law claims and jurisdiction

The court stated that the complaint could be read to assert state-law claims. It found, however, that Harte had not shown diversity jurisdiction because the complaint indicated that all parties resided in New York. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires citizens of different states and a claim exceeding $75,000. The court did not decide whether Harte could pursue a state-law claim in state court and noted that he might be able to state a conversion claim under state law. Because Harte could amend his federal claims, the court deferred deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

Disposition

The court granted Harte leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must be labeled “Amended Complaint,” use docket number 24-CV-4994 (LTS), and repeat any facts or claims from the original complaint that Harte wants to retain. It will completely replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. No summons issued at that time. The court warned that failure to amend within the allowed period, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Harte permission to appeal without prepaying fees.