Smith v. OFC Macintosh

Background

Kevin Smith, appearing without a lawyer, sued OFC. MACINTOSH over an incident on July 9, 2024, at a shelter located on “25 Observatory Drive.” The court understood the complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against people who violate federal rights while acting for a state or local government.

Smith alleged that Officer Macintosh entered his room with a security detail and told everyone except Smith to leave. Macintosh allegedly searched Smith’s locker for contraband. After finding none, Macintosh allegedly packed Smith’s belongings and told him to report downstairs. Smith was then placed on “Break in Stay” status, told he could not sleep in his assigned bed that night, and told to report to the Department of Social Services for placement. Smith alleged that he was sanctioned and was not placed back until three weeks later. He sought $75,000 in damages.

Screening analysis

Because Smith had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. It explained that such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or presents claims over which the court lacks jurisdiction. The court also said that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

To state a § 1983 claim, Smith had to allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action by a person acting for the state. The complaint did not identify Macintosh’s employer, work address, or the shelter’s name. Although the word “officer” might suggest employment by a law-enforcement agency, the court said Macintosh might instead be a shelter employee. If Macintosh worked for a private shelter rather than a government entity, he could not be sued under § 1983 based on the alleged conduct.

Ruling and required amendment

The court granted Smith 60 days to file an amended complaint. It instructed him to provide a short statement of the facts supporting each claim, addresses for named defendants if available, the names and titles of relevant people, descriptions of the events and each defendant’s actions or failures to act, the approximate dates and locations, his injuries, and the relief requested. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint, so Smith must repeat any facts or claims from the original that he wants the court to consider.

The court ordered Smith to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 24-CV-6659 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that failure to comply within the 60-day period, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Smith permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.