Garnes v. City of New York

Background

Mark Garnes, proceeding without a lawyer, brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. He alleged that Detective Kyle Keiser and unidentified New York City police officers created a wanted poster using a photograph taken during Garnes’s arrest in a case that was dismissed on March 31, 2021. Garnes alleged that the photograph had been sealed and was unlawfully unsealed without a court order. He discovered the poster in the lobby of 2810 Olinville Avenue in the Bronx on May 18, 2024.

Garnes sued the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, Detective Keiser, and unidentified officers and detectives. He asserted claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the New York Constitution. He also asserted state-law claims for defamation, slander, and libel, and sought $1.5 million in damages. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.

Federal Due-Process Claim

Because the case was filed without prepayment of fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of an action that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a complaint must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, even when filed by someone without a lawyer.

For a § 1983 procedural-due-process claim, a plaintiff must allege a protected liberty or property interest and show that the government deprived him of that interest without the process required by law. Garnes argued that New York Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50, which addresses photographs from criminal cases that have ended and been sealed, gave him a protected interest because such photographs must be destroyed or returned at the discretion of the receiving agency.

The court relied on decisions holding that § 160.50 does not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest in reputation or privacy for purposes of a § 1983 due-process claim. It therefore concluded that Garnes’s allegation that defendants violated that New York statute was insufficient to establish a federal constitutional violation. The court dismissed the § 1983 due-process claim for failure to state a claim.

The court did not address Garnes’s Fifth Amendment claim because the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause applies to claims against federal officials, and Garnes did not sue any federal officials.

Claims Against the City

The court explained that a municipality can be liable under § 1983 only when its own policy, custom, practice, or failure to train or supervise caused a constitutional violation. Because the alleged failure to obtain a court order before unsealing the photograph did not violate the federal Constitution, the City could not be liable on that basis. The court also ruled that allegations that the City failed to train officers to comply with state law did not state a § 1983 claim because Garnes did not allege that the training failure caused a violation of his federal constitutional rights.

The court dismissed Garnes’s § 1983 claims against the City for failure to state a claim.

State-Law Claims and Amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Garnes was asserting. Those claims included defamation, slander, and libel.

The court also denied leave to amend. It concluded that Garnes could not cure the defects in his complaint through an amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the federal claims under § 1983 for failure to state a claim, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the case. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.