Cora v. Garhann
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-06235
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
In Cora v. Garhann, Judge Swain dismissed Harlem and Pennsylvania claims, allowing only the Harlem claims to be refiled in this case.
Roman M. Cora II may amend the Harlem claims within 30 days, while the Pennsylvania claims may be pursued in a new civil action in Pennsylvania; the named defendants remain parties to the dismissed claims unless further proceedings occur.
What happened
In Cora v. Garhann, Roman M. Cora II, representing himself, alleged that he was injured at a Harlem shelter and described problems involving his children in Pennsylvania. He sought the release of his children and other relief.
The court dismissed the Harlem claims because the complaint did not allege that state actors failed to protect him, but allowed him 30 days to provide more details and amend those claims. It dismissed the Pennsylvania claims because they lacked enough facts and this district was not the proper location for them; that dismissal was without prejudice to filing a new case in Pennsylvania.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied filing-fee assistance for an appeal and said the case would remain open until a judgment was entered if no amended complaint was filed.
The detailed version
- Cora v. Garhann · No. 1:24-cv-06235
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 13, 2025
Background
Roman M. Cora II proceeded without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that he was injured by an unidentified person at a men’s shelter in Harlem on May 31, 2024, and that security guards left their posts and did not help him. He also described alleged abuse, lack of medical care, and custody-related problems involving his children in Edwardsville, Pennsylvania. He named Children & Youth/SAM Inc., Jamie Rolland, and Kelly Garhann as defendants and sought the release of his children.
The court treated the Harlem allegations as an attempt to bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting for the government. The court explained that private security guards generally are not government actors. It also explained that the Constitution generally does not require government officials to protect people from harm, absent specific circumstances such as a government actor creating or increasing a danger.
Harlem Claims
The court dismissed the Harlem claims for failure to state a claim. Cora did not allege that a government actor participated in the events, that the security guards had been appointed with police-like authority, or that a government actor created or increased the danger to him through conduct sufficiently extreme to support such a claim.
Because Cora was representing himself and appeared to be attempting to assert claims arising from the Harlem incident, the court granted him 30 days to file an amended complaint concerning those claims. The court instructed him to identify the people he believes violated his rights, or to use John or Jane Doe descriptions if he does not know their names, and to provide more details about the assault and the guards’ conduct.
Pennsylvania Claims and Venue
The court also dismissed the Pennsylvania claims for failure to state a claim. Cora did not describe the Pennsylvania events in enough detail or provide facts showing that the named defendants violated federal or state law. The court declined to allow amendment of those claims in this case because the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue. The opinion stated that the Middle District of Pennsylvania may be a proper venue because the events were alleged to have occurred in Luzerne County and the defendants appeared to have Pennsylvania addresses.
The Pennsylvania dismissal was without prejudice to Cora’s filing a new civil action in Pennsylvania. The court did not state that the Harlem claims were dismissed with or without prejudice; instead, it granted leave to replead them in this case.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint under the screening provision for cases filed without prepayment of fees, while granting 30 days’ leave to replead the Harlem claims. It dismissed the Pennsylvania claims without prejudice to filing an action in Pennsylvania. If Cora did not file an amended complaint within the allowed period, the clerk would be directed to enter judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied filing-fee assistance for an appeal.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.