Felicie v. Hill

Background

Bobby Felicie, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint against Octavia Hill, Detective White, Judges Doris Gonzalez and Joseph Capella, Gladys Maldonado, Gladys Aquino, Chelsea John, Letitia James, and Steven Banks. He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several other federal statutes. He alleged that, beginning in January 2021, the defendants unlawfully intercepted or disclosed communications, accessed or altered his computer systems and accounts, mishandled or disclosed personal and health information, violated his rights under the Fourth and First Amendments, and discriminated against him based on disability.

Felicie also alleged that Hill failed to follow up on his complaints; that White played a role in harassment connected to his landlord; that the judges and court clerks fabricated information, forged subpoenas, and allowed personal and medical information to be filed in a state-court electronic system; and that John, James, and Banks provided altered or modified documents after his complaint to the New York State Division of Human Rights or the New York City Human Resources Administration. He invoked Section 1983, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Reasons for dismissal

The court applied the screening standard for a complaint filed without prepaying filing fees. Under that standard, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint receives a liberal reading but still must provide enough facts to make relief plausible.

The court dismissed the claims against Judges Gonzalez and Capella, court-related defendants Maldonado and Aquino, Attorney General Letitia James, and NYSDHR Regional Director Chelsea John on immunity grounds, relying on the reasons given in an earlier round of this case. The court dismissed the claim against Hill because failing to investigate complaints generally does not violate the Constitution, and Felicie did not allege facts showing either of the recognized exceptions discussed by the court: custody creating a duty to protect him, or government conduct that affirmatively created or increased a danger.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against White and Banks because Felicie did not allege facts showing their direct and personal involvement in violating his constitutional rights. The court also dismissed claims seeking intervention in ongoing state-court matters under the rule that generally prevents a federal court from interfering with qualifying state proceedings.

The court found that Felicie did not provide supporting facts for his statutory claims. In particular, he did not allege facts showing a constitutional violation, disability discrimination in housing or another covered matter, or a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The court stated that the Privacy Act authorizes suits against federal agencies, not state agencies, and that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act does not provide a private right to sue.

Other rulings and disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), with 30 days to replead. It granted Felicie leave to file an amended complaint because of his self-represented status. The court denied his motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice, meaning the denial did not bar a later request. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.