Wright v. New York City Police Department

Background

Delilah Candice Wright proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. After the court identified deficiencies in her original complaint and allowed her to amend, Wright filed an amended complaint naming multiple defendants, including the New York City Police Department, the Department of Homeless Services, Good Shepherd Services, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the New York City Transit Authority, the Fire Department of New York, and the Administration for Children’s Services.

Wright invoked federal-question jurisdiction and said she was asserting claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. Her amended complaint involved two groups of events. First, she alleged that passengers on a New York City bus used racial slurs against her on December 5, 2023, and that the bus driver suggested she ignore the conduct. She sought damages from the New York City Transit Authority and possibly the Port Authority. Second, she repeated allegations about an April 2022 involuntary hospitalization, the removal of her children from her custody, and later events involving Good Shepherd Services. She also attempted to assert claims on behalf of her minor children.

Claims on behalf of the children

The court dismissed without prejudice any claims Wright asserted on behalf of her minor children. The court explained that a parent who is not an attorney generally cannot represent a child in federal court while proceeding without a lawyer.

Hospitalization, child-removal, and related claims

The court had previously directed Wright not to include claims concerning her April 2022 hospitalization and the removal of her children because those claims were already being litigated in an earlier related proceeding. Wright nevertheless included them again and named the Administration for Children’s Services, Good Shepherd Services, the Department of Homeless Services, the New York City Police Department, and the Fire Department of New York in connection with those allegations.

The court dismissed those claims without prejudice to any relief that might be available in the earlier related proceeding. It also dismissed without prejudice any new claims against Good Shepherd Services based on later events because those claims were unrelated to the bus incident and beyond the scope of the permission previously given to amend.

Bus-harassment claim

The court treated Wright’s remaining claim about racial slurs on the bus and the driver’s response as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 allows a person to seek relief for violations of federal rights caused by a state or local government or an entity treated as a municipality. For such a claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must allege both a municipal policy, custom, or practice and a connection between that policy, custom, or practice and the alleged constitutional violation.

The court held that Wright’s allegation that a bus driver suggested she ignore harassment by passengers was insufficient to show that a policy, custom, or practice of either the New York City Transit Authority or the Port Authority caused a violation of her rights. The court also noted that verbal harassment alone, including racial slurs, generally does not establish a constitutional violation without additional appreciable injury, and that the alleged harassment was committed by private individuals whom Wright had not identified as defendants.

The court therefore dismissed Wright’s § 1983 claims against the New York City Transit Authority and the Port Authority for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

State-law claims and amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Wright might have been asserting. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.

The court also declined to give Wright another opportunity to amend. It concluded that she had already been given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies and that the amended complaint repeated those deficiencies without showing that further amendment could cure them.

Disposition

The court dismissed without prejudice claims Wright asserted on behalf of her minor children. It dismissed without prejudice Wright’s claims against the Administration for Children’s Services, Good Shepherd Services, the Department of Homeless Services, the New York City Police Department, and the Fire Department of New York. It dismissed Wright’s § 1983 claims against the New York City Transit Authority and the Port Authority for failure to state a claim, declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and directed that judgment enter.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Wright permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.