DeJesus v. Tapia

Background

Alex DeJesus filed this self-represented action under federal-question jurisdiction against P.O. Tapia-Rodriguez. The complaint concerned a July 6, 2024 incident in Manhattan. DeJesus alleged that Tapia-Rodriguez stopped his car after DeJesus turned right onto South Clinton Street, said that DeJesus was not supposed to make that turn, and issued a ticket after DeJesus questioned the stop and described it as selective enforcement. DeJesus also alleged that another officer used a flashlight to look inside his car. He sought $20,000 in damages.

The court had previously allowed DeJesus to proceed without paying filing fees. It therefore reviewed the complaint under the statute requiring dismissal of a fee-free complaint, or part of one, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint must still provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims and Analysis

The court treated the allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims against state actors who violate federal rights.

Equal protection and selective enforcement. The court explained that a selective-enforcement claim requires facts showing that the plaintiff was treated differently from similarly situated people and that the different treatment was based on race, religion, an effort to punish constitutional rights, or another impermissible consideration. DeJesus alleged only that he had seen other cars make the same turn. The court found that he did not identify comparators or provide facts showing that those drivers were similarly situated in all material respects. He also did not allege facts suggesting that the treatment was based on discrimination or another impermissible reason. The court therefore found these allegations deficient but allowed DeJesus to replead the equal-protection claim.

Fourth Amendment. The court treated the flashlight allegation as a claim under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It held that an officer’s shining a flashlight through a car window to look inside does not constitute a search. The court therefore concluded that this allegation did not suggest a constitutional injury and failed to state a claim under Section 1983.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Because DeJesus was proceeding without a lawyer and the court concluded that he might be able to provide additional facts about selective enforcement, the court granted him 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to follow the court’s instructions, be labeled “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 24-CV-6448. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. If DeJesus did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

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 order did not finally dismiss the action; it granted leave to amend.