Miller v. United States

Background

Maureen Miller, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying the filing fee, sued the United States under federal-question jurisdiction. She alleged that, on July 26, 2024, a Parks Department sergeant named Tobin physically assaulted her and discriminated against her because of her race and religion. Miller named only the United States as a defendant, although her allegations concerned an employee of the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation.

In an earlier order dated February 6, 2025, the court directed Miller to file an amended complaint. The court found that the original complaint did not satisfy Rule 8, which requires a complaint to give a short and clear statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court also explained that sovereign immunity generally protects the United States from constitutional claims unless an exception applies. It further stated that tort claims against the United States could not proceed because Miller had not alleged that she completed the administrative process required by the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court also noted that Miller had not identified the New York City employees as defendants or explained how each person was personally involved, and had not alleged facts showing that the federal government was involved in the Battery Park incident. The earlier order denied Miller’s request for emergency injunctive relief and gave her permission to amend.

Miller’s Submissions

Instead of filing an amended complaint, Miller filed a letter, a marked-up copy of the February 6 order, and a motion requesting a conference. She objected to the court’s description of her submissions, challenged the order’s electronic signature, and asserted that the Parks Department is federal. The court held that these submissions could not serve as an amended complaint.

Ruling

The court again directed Miller to file an amended complaint complying with the February 6 order. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so Miller must repeat any facts or claims she wants to preserve. She was directed to submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days of February 6, 2025, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 24-CV-6532 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for a conference without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it. The court stated that, if Miller did not timely comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim and on immunity grounds. The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Miller permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.