Azad v. Molina

Background

Mohammad A. Azad, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York, several City employees, the law firm Joey Jackson Law, PLLC and its lawyers, and the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association, Inc. and its president. Azad alleged that his termination from the New York City Department of Correction violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against being deprived of a protected interest without adequate procedures, the Sixth Amendment, federal civil-rights statutes, and various state and local laws.

Azad was charged with excessive absence and failing to provide adequate medical documentation. He had received nearly two years of paid leave after an April 2021 incident in which he was injured while intervening in an altercation between inmates. A pre-trial conference occurred in May 2023, and a hearing under New York Civil Service Law Section 75 occurred in July 2023. Azad did not attend the hearing personally; a representative appeared for him. The hearing included evidence about his absences and testimony from three Department of Correction witnesses. Azad was given the opportunity to appear and call witnesses but did neither. He was terminated on October 24, 2023.

Motions and Legal Standard

The City and City employees, the Jackson Defendants, and the Union Defendants each moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and considered whether they plausibly showed that the defendants were liable. Because Azad was representing himself, the court read his filings liberally but still required a plausible claim.

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Claim

The court held that Azad failed to state a claim for denial of procedural due process. A public employee with a protected interest in continued employment generally must receive basic procedures before termination. The court concluded that Azad received adequate pre-termination process: he was notified of the charges, had a pre-trial conference, and received a Section 75 hearing at which evidence and witness testimony were presented. He had the opportunity to attend and call witnesses, even though he chose not to do so.

The court also held that the opportunity for a post-termination proceeding under Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules provided an additional adequate remedy. The fact that Azad did not pursue that proceeding did not mean that he was denied due process. The court explained that alleged violations of additional state or local procedures do not, by themselves, establish a federal due-process violation when the minimum federal requirements of notice and a hearing were satisfied. Because the court found adequate process, it did not decide whether the private lawyers and union defendants were state actors or had acted jointly with state actors.

Other Federal Claims

The court dismissed Azad’s Sixth Amendment claim because the Sixth Amendment does not apply to civil plaintiffs. It also concluded that Azad had not adequately alleged a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 because he did not allege the required race-based or other class-based discriminatory motivation. His claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 therefore also failed because that claim depended on a valid Section 1985 claim.

Azad also asserted a claim against the City under Monell v. Department of Social Services, which can impose municipal liability for constitutional violations caused by an official policy or custom. The court dismissed that claim because it had found no underlying constitutional injury.

State and Local Claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Azad’s remaining state and local law claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Disposition

The court granted the City and City Employee Defendants’ motion to dismiss, granted the Jackson Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and granted the Union Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment of dismissal and close the case. Judge J. Paul Oetken’s order did not add a prejudice designation to the dismissal of the federal claims; it expressly stated that the state and local claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.