Gordon v. Gordon

Background

Catherine Gordon, appearing without a lawyer, sued 25 defendants. The defendants included TD Bank, the 79th Precinct of the New York City Police Department, the United States Postal Service, Chase Bank, Citi Bank, Parkside Dental Care, Unique Dental Care, Fire Department Engine 214, and various individuals.

Gordon alleged that a group of people had stolen and mishandled her mail, committed identity theft, damaged her credit history, misused her name in financial transactions, cloned her phone and devices, stalked and harassed her, stolen her intellectual property, sexually assaulted and abused her, and drugged or poisoned her food and personal products. She also alleged that she and her daughter had been scammed out of their residence and sought compensation for deed fraud, theft, pain, suffering, and neurological damage.

The court had previously allowed Gordon to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court reviewed the complaint under the statute requiring dismissal of a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. It also considered whether the court had authority to hear the claims.

Failure to State a Claim

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Although courts read self-represented pleadings liberally, a complaint must still include enough factual information to make a claim plausible.

The court found that Gordon’s allegations were largely conclusory and did not explain how most defendants were involved or what each defendant did that violated her rights. The court noted that most of the defendants—including private individuals, dental offices, and banks—were not mentioned in the complaint at all.

Claims Concerning the 79th Precinct

The court understood Gordon to be attempting to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state or local actors for violating constitutional rights. She appeared to allege that the 79th Precinct failed to investigate her complaints or protect her.

The court ruled that the 79th Precinct and the New York City Police Department were not entities that could be sued. Even if the claims were treated as claims against New York City, the complaint did not allege facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation.

The court also explained that there generally is no constitutional right to have government officials investigate a person’s complaints or protect the person from harm. The court identified exceptions involving custody or government conduct that creates or increases a danger, but found that Gordon had not alleged facts satisfying those exceptions or showing conduct that was sufficiently extreme. The court therefore dismissed the failure-to-protect claims for failure to state a claim.

State-Law Claims

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 Gordon may have been asserting.

Request for Volunteer Counsel

Gordon also asked the court to request volunteer legal counsel. Because the court dismissed the action but allowed her to amend the complaint, it denied that motion without prejudice to renewal at a later time.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Gordon 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The court stated that if she did not file an amended complaint within that period, the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment.

The court denied fee-free status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court directed the Clerk to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment is entered.