Samuels v. New York City
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-10045
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Samuels v. New York City, Judge Subramanian dismissed Samuels’s amended complaint because he did not show that applying for a grant would be futile.
Justin Samuels’s challenge to the NYC Women’s Film Fund was dismissed because the court found that he had not plausibly alleged standing to sue.
What happened
In Samuels v. New York City, Justin Samuels challenged the NYC Women’s Film Fund’s preference for women and transgender artists, claiming it violated federal and state law. He said he did not apply because he believed his gender made applying pointless.
The court said Samuels could establish the right to sue either by showing that he applied and was rejected or by showing that he was ready and qualified to apply but that applying would have been pointless. The court found that he did not plausibly show either. The Fund’s website said anyone could apply regardless of sex or gender, and Samuels did not allege that his film met the program’s separate subject-matter requirements.
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because Samuels had not shown standing, and it directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Judge Arun Subramanian issued the order.
The detailed version
- Samuels v. New York City · No. 1:23-cv-10045
- Subramanian
- Jan. 3, 2025
Background
Justin Samuels, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the NYC Women’s Film Fund. The opinion describes Samuels as an aspiring filmmaker with an unfinished film. He alleged that the Fund’s preference for women and transgender artists violated the Civil Rights Act, the United States Constitution, and the New York State Human Rights Law.
In an earlier ruling, the court granted the Fund’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because Samuels had not plausibly alleged standing—the required personal connection to a dispute that allows a person to sue in federal court. The court allowed him to amend his complaint. Samuels filed an amended complaint, and the Fund again moved to dismiss on the same ground.
Court’s analysis
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the court lacks authority to hear a case, including when a plaintiff lacks constitutional standing. To establish standing in a challenge to a discriminatory program, Samuels could allege either that he applied and was rejected or that he was ready and able to apply but that applying would have been a futile gesture.
Samuels did not allege that he applied. Instead, he alleged that he was qualified but effectively barred from applying because he was a cisgender man and the Fund preferred women and transgender individuals. The court found that this did not plausibly show that applying would have been futile. The Fund’s website stated that anyone could apply and receive a grant regardless of actual or perceived sex, gender, gender identity, or gender expression. The opinion also states that Samuels did not dispute in his opposition papers that cisgender men could and had received grants from the Fund.
The court further found that Samuels did not specifically allege that his project satisfied the Fund’s requirements. The website stated that eligible projects must feature a prominent woman’s perspective or include a woman-identified director, producer, writer or songwriter, engineer, protagonist, or lead musical role. Samuels did not challenge that subject-matter requirement or allege that his project met it. His decision not to apply therefore did not establish that applying would have been futile.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the Fund’s motion to dismiss, docket entry 32, and close the case. Judge Arun Subramanian signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.