Murray v. The State of New York

Background

Michael John Murray brought this action without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. He asserted claims under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and sought damages and injunctive relief. The court read his amended complaint as naming the State of New York; the New York City Housing Authority; Leila Bozorg; Derek Davis; Governor Kathy Hochul; Attorney General Letitia James; the Graduate Center of the City University of New York; and Georgette Banks Murray.

Murray’s allegations concerned events allegedly occurring between 1962 and 1998. They included an alleged misuse of his Social Security account number by CUNY, his termination as a CUNY student, an income-execution order issued by the New York City Housing Authority, actions involving a real-estate license and other state agencies, and a 1998 divorce judgment and service of divorce papers. The amended complaint did not make specific allegations against Governor Hochul, Attorney General James, Leila Bozorg, or Derek Davis.

Claims and Reasons for Dismissal

Because constitutional claims generally must be brought through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court treated Murray’s claims as § 1983 claims. Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for certain violations committed under color of state law.

State of New York and CUNY. The court dismissed the claims against the State of New York and CUNY because the Eleventh Amendment generally prevents federal-court suits against a state and its state instruments without the state’s consent or a valid act of Congress removing that immunity. The court held that CUNY is an arm of the state and that neither New York nor Congress had removed the immunity for these § 1983 claims. These claims were dismissed with leave to amend.

New York City Housing Authority, Bozorg, Hochul, James, and Davis. The court held that the § 1983 claims against these defendants were barred by New York’s three-year limitations period. The allegations involving the Housing Authority dated to 1987, those involving CUNY-related officials dated to 1962 through 1995, and those involving the State and state officials dated to 1980 through 1998. The court found that the complaint did not allege facts showing that Murray discovered the injuries later or that the limitations period should be paused. The claims against these defendants were dismissed, with leave to amend within 30 days to allege why the claims were timely or why the limitations period should be paused under applicable law.

Georgette Banks Murray. The court held that the complaint did not allege that Georgette Banks Murray’s conduct was attributable to the state. The court described her as a private citizen and found that the allegations about service of the divorce summons did not support an inference that the state compelled her conduct, acted jointly with her, or delegated a public function to her. The § 1983 claims against her were dismissed for failure to allege state action, without prejudice to amendment within 30 days.

State-law claims. To the extent the complaint asserted state-law claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The court had dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, and it therefore did not address the possible state-law claims on their merits.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods dismissed the amended complaint on the court’s own initiative, without prejudice to amendment within 30 days. If Murray did not file another amended complaint within that period, the court stated that the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment dismissing the action. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. It also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion because the dismissal made that motion moot.