Fan v. The 18th Police Precinct

Background

Lingling Fan, representing herself, sued the 18th Police Precinct of the New York City Police Department, the New York State Attorney General’s Office, and Saks Off 5th. She alleged that, while attempting to return items at a Saks store, an employee falsely accused her of theft because of racial and gender discrimination. She further alleged that store employees used derogatory language and that police officers detained her, used physical force, denied her access to restroom facilities, and seized her wallet, jewelry, and jade artifacts without documenting or returning them. Fan also alleged that the Attorney General’s Office mishandled documents and relied on false police reports and fabricated evidence. In addition, she alleged that Saks engaged in deceptive sales practices.

Fan asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3), Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and New York law. She sought money damages. The court reviewed the complaint under the screening rules applicable to a complaint filed without prepayment of fees, which require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Federal Civil-Rights Claims

The court dismissed Fan’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Saks because Saks was alleged to be a private party, not a state actor. A state actor is a person or entity acting for the government, which is generally required for a claim under that statute.

The court dismissed Fan’s § 1983 claims against the New York State Attorney General’s Office because the office is effectively an arm of New York State and is protected by the Eleventh Amendment from this suit. The court also dismissed the claims against the 18th Precinct because a New York City agency is not an entity that can be sued. The court added that, even if the claims were treated as claims against New York City, Fan had not alleged facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violations.

The court dismissed Fan’s § 1983 municipal-liability claims for failure to state a claim but granted her 30 days’ leave to replead. The court stated that she might be able to provide additional facts supporting a municipal-liability claim or a claim against individually named officers.

Conspiracy and Discrimination Claims

The court dismissed Fan’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), which concerns conspiracies to deprive people of equal legal protection. The court found that her allegations of a conspiracy among Saks employees, law-enforcement officers, and the Attorney General’s Office were vague, conclusory, and unsupported by enough specific detail.

The court dismissed Fan’s Title VII claims because she did not allege that she was employed by any defendant or that any defendant discriminated against her in connection with employment. It dismissed her Title VI claims against Saks because she did not allege facts showing that Saks received federal funds or intentionally discriminated against her based on race, color, or national origin.

Criminal-Statute and Federal Trade Commission Act Claims

The court dismissed Fan’s claims under the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and other federal criminal statutes because those laws do not give private individuals the right to bring civil lawsuits. The court also explained that private individuals cannot order prosecutors or the court to begin a criminal prosecution.

The court dismissed Fan’s Federal Trade Commission Act claims concerning allegedly deceptive sales practices because that statute does not provide a private right of action. Enforcement is instead assigned to the Federal Trade Commission.

State-Law Claims and Leave to Amend

After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fan’s state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims, but the court may decline to do so after the federal claims are gone, particularly early in the case.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint, filed without prepayment of fees, and granted Fan 30 days’ leave to replead her claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. If Fan does not file an amended complaint within the allowed time, the clerk will be directed to enter judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.