OWNER/AGENT @DUDEOFNEWYORK v. Hochul

Background

The plaintiff, who identifies as the “Dude of New York” and signed the complaint with the name Damonte Brown, appeared without a lawyer. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and asserted a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a statute that provides relief for tortious conduct by federal employees. He named New York Governor Kathy Hochul as the defendant and sought $1 billion in damages.

The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was harmed by unspecified government employees or agencies under elected officials in New York. It stated that the plaintiff’s injury details were being withheld “until further notice.” The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Court’s Analysis

Because the complaint sought damages from a New York state official, the court construed it as asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court noted that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not apply to state officials such as Governor Hochul.

The court dismissed the official-capacity claims under the Eleventh Amendment. That constitutional protection generally prevents states, and state officials acting as state representatives, from being sued for damages in federal court unless the state has waived its protection or Congress has removed it. The court found that New York had not waived this protection and that Congress had not removed it when it enacted Section 1983.

The court also dismissed any individual-capacity claims for failure to state a claim. A Section 1983 claim for damages requires facts showing that the defendant was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation. The complaint did not allege facts showing how Governor Hochul personally participated in the events. The court also explained that a government official cannot be held liable merely because she supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights.

The court declined to grant leave to amend because the complaint attributed the alleged wrongdoing to unspecified government employees rather than to actions by the Governor, making amendment futile. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims the plaintiff might have intended to assert.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii). It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied the plaintiff’s fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.