Ballentine v. State of New York

Background

Quintin J. Ballentine, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, sued the State of New York for damages. He alleged that he lived in supportive housing on Marion Avenue in the Bronx operated by Post Graduate Center for Mental Health (PCMH). According to the complaint, PCMH staff repeatedly harassed him, called emergency services with false or exaggerated descriptions of incidents, and at times worked with New York Police Department officers to surround him and forcibly take him to a hospital. He also alleged that the State failed to monitor the housing and failed to investigate complaints he made to the New York Justice Center and the Office of Mental Health. He sought more than $3 million.

Claims and analysis

The court reviewed the complaint under the screening rules for cases filed without prepaying fees. Those rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally valid claim, or seek damages from a defendant protected from that relief.

Under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the United States Attorney General—not a private individual—may bring a civil action under the provision Ballentine cited. The court therefore dismissed that claim for failure to state a claim.

The court also considered Ballentine’s claims under the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. For purposes of the order, the court assumed that he had a disability based on his reference to a behavioral health disorder. But the complaint did not allege that New York denied him a service, program, or activity that the State offered, or that the State acted against him because of his disability. The court therefore held that the complaint failed to state claims under either statute. It additionally ruled that Ballentine had not alleged the discriminatory intent required to overcome the State’s constitutional protection from damages in federal court on his ADA claim.

Ballentine also cited 18 U.S.C. § 241, a federal criminal statute. The court ruled that a private citizen cannot prosecute a federal criminal case, so it dismissed that claim for failure to state a claim.

State-law claims and disposition

The court said the complaint might be read to assert state-law claims. Because it dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—meaning authority to hear related state-law claims—in this action.

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), with 30 days’ leave to replead. If Ballentine does not file an amended complaint within that period, the Clerk will be directed to enter judgment. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.