DeRouseau v. Korzeilus
- Louis Stanton
- 1:24-cv-06516
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In DeRouseau v. Korzeilus, Judge Stanton dismissed the federal claims because the amended complaint did not plausibly explain Defendant’s alleged wrongdoing.
Kyle G. DeRouseau’s federal claims were dismissed, and his state-law claims were not heard in federal court. The order did not prevent him from refiling state-law claims in state court.
What happened
In DeRouseau v. Korzeilus, Kyle G. DeRouseau sued John T. Korzeilus without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. DeRouseau’s amended complaint referred to verbal harassment, a missing volunteer-firefighter application fee, exclusion from a property, and an alleged violation of his right to vote.
The court found that the amended complaint did not correct problems identified in an earlier order. It did not explain what Korzeilus personally did, who allegedly harassed DeRouseau, when or where the harassment occurred, or what was said. The court also found that the allegations were too conclusory to show that DeRouseau was entitled to relief.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim, declined to hear any state-law claims, and declined to allow another amendment. The clerk was directed to enter judgment. The order stated that DeRouseau could refile state-law claims in state court.
The detailed version
- DeRouseau v. Korzeilus · No. 1:24-cv-06516
- Louis Stanton
- June 16, 2025
Background
Kyle G. DeRouseau filed the action without a lawyer and was permitted to proceed without paying filing fees. The amended complaint named John T. Korzeilus as the only defendant and did not specify the relief sought.
The amended complaint stated: “I was harassed verbally Then my application for fireman allegedly lost except for the financial fee. Then, I was told through witness that I can not be on premise at All! This violating my right to vote.” The court noted that these were the only factual allegations in the amended complaint.
In an earlier order, the court had understood the original complaint as possibly raising two claims: that DeRouseau’s application to become a volunteer firefighter had been denied in 2023, possibly because of his history of arrests, and that he had been excluded from the Sleepy Hollow Fire Station and therefore could not vote. The earlier order found that the original complaint did not contain enough factual detail and gave DeRouseau permission to file an amended complaint.
Legal standard
The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without paying filing fees if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is legally immune from that relief. The court must also dismiss claims over which it lacks authority to exercise jurisdiction.
Although courts read filings from people without lawyers generously, those filings still must provide a short and clear statement explaining why the person is entitled to relief. The complaint must include enough factual detail to make liability a reasonable possibility, rather than merely asserting legal conclusions.
Court’s reasoning
The amended complaint did not mention Korzeilus in its factual allegations and did not say what Korzeilus personally did or failed to do. The court stated that personal involvement by a defendant is required for damages under the civil-rights statute identified in the opinion, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court also found that the amended complaint contained fewer factual allegations than the original complaint and that its remaining statements were conclusory. For example, DeRouseau did not identify who allegedly harassed him, when or where the harassment occurred, or what was said. The allegations therefore did not give Korzeilus adequate notice of the claims or show that DeRouseau was entitled to relief.
Disposition
The court dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority over related state-law claims, and declined to give DeRouseau another opportunity to amend because the amended complaint gave no indication that its defects could be cured.
The clerk was directed to enter judgment. The order also stated that nothing in it prevented DeRouseau from refiling state-law claims in state court.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.