Jean v. HRA

Background

Herby Jean proceeded without a lawyer and without prepaying the filing fee. The action was transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the Southern District of New York. After Chief Judge Swain directed Jean to address deficiencies in his original complaint, Jean filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for certain constitutional violations by people acting for the government. Jean alleged that unidentified officers from the New York City Police Department’s 25th Precinct used excessive force against him while he was handcuffed at the Help Meyer’s shelter on Ward’s Island. He also alleged that the Civilian Complaint Review Board failed to investigate and that Chris Anderson took money from the police department and the New York City Comptroller.

Jean separately alleged that another client with a knife injured him at the Blake Avenue shelter in Brooklyn and that another client with a knife injured him at the Jerome Avenue shelter in the Bronx. He further alleged that the 52nd Precinct intentionally placed him and the other client in the same holding cell. The amended complaint named the Human Resources Administration, the Civilian Complaint Review Board, the 25th and 52nd Precincts, Chris Anderson, and the three shelters as defendants. Jean sought $3 billion in damages.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court explained that complaints filed without prepaying the filing fee must be dismissed if they are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally valid claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make liability plausible.

The court dismissed the claims against the Human Resources Administration, the Civilian Complaint Review Board, and the New York City Police Department’s 25th and 52nd Precincts because those agencies and subdivisions lack the capacity to be sued under the New York City Charter. The court stated that a claim based on a New York City policy, custom, or practice must name the City of New York and allege facts connecting that policy, custom, or practice to a constitutional violation. Alternatively, a claim may name individual government actors who were personally involved and describe what each person did or failed to do.

The court also dismissed the § 1983 claims against Chris Anderson and the three shelters. Section 1983 generally does not apply to private parties unless their conduct can be attributed to the government. The court concluded that Jean did not allege facts showing that the attorney or shelters acted under color of state law. The court specifically stated that the shelters’ provision of homeless services, even if performed under a government contract or subject to government regulation, did not by itself make them state actors.

State-Law Claims and Opportunity to Amend

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 Jean may have intended to assert. The court stated that the order did not prevent Jean from pursuing those claims in an appropriate state court.

The court found that amendment would be futile as to many named defendants because the shelters are private parties and the listed city agencies and police precincts cannot be sued. However, it concluded that Jean might be able to allege additional facts supporting a claim against a John Doe or Jane Doe police officer or against New York City based on a policy, custom, or practice. The court granted Jean 30 days to file a second amended complaint. If he did not do so within that time, the clerk would be directed to enter judgment.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and declined supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), with 30 days’ leave to replead. The court directed the clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.