Bonsell v. Muldowney

Background

Alina Bonsell proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to file without paying the filing fee. Her operative amended complaint alleged that Kathleen Muldowney, a licensed clinical social worker engaged to provide services to Bonsell’s child, improperly billed Bonsell $500, described parent-related sessions as individual psychotherapy, and used a billing code that allegedly implied Bonsell had a depressive disorder. Bonsell also alleged that Muldowney falsely reported to New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services that Bonsell was placing the child at risk, and later submitted a damaging letter to Family Court.

Bonsell invoked the False Claims Act, a federal law imposing liability for knowingly submitting false claims for payment to the federal government; federal criminal law; New York criminal law; a constitutional due-process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and state-law claims including defamation, libel, professional misconduct, withholding information, emotional distress, and parental alienation. She sought damages, criminal penalties, termination of Muldowney’s license, removal of the child from Muldowney’s care, and retractions of allegedly false statements.

Court’s analysis

The court dismissed the False Claims Act claim without prejudice. A private person may bring that type of claim only on behalf of the United States, making the government the real party in interest. The court held that a person representing herself cannot prosecute such a claim. The court also noted that it was not deciding the merits of the alleged billing fraud and observed that Bonsell appeared to allege billing to herself rather than a false claim submitted to the United States.

The court dismissed Bonsell’s claims based on federal and state criminal statutes because a private individual cannot initiate a criminal prosecution or obtain an order directing prosecutors to bring charges. It dismissed the § 1983 due-process claim under the statute governing dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint because Muldowney was a private social worker and Bonsell did not plausibly allege that Muldowney acted under state authority. The court explained that appointment by Family Court and reporting suspected child abuse to a government agency did not, on the allegations presented, make Muldowney a state actor. The court also identified the additional problem that the complaint did not allege that Bonsell lacked a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any remaining state-law claims. The court stated that the order did not prevent Bonsell from pursuing state-law claims in a state court of general jurisdiction.

Other rulings and disposition

The court directed the Clerk to strike Bonsell’s second amended complaint because she had already used her one amendment allowed without the court’s permission. The court stated that it had reviewed that filing and that it would not change the result. The court declined to grant further leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by another amendment. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment.

The final dispositions were: the False Claims Act claims were dismissed without prejudice; the § 1983 claims were dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); the criminal claims were dismissed because Bonsell lacked standing to pursue criminal charges; and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.