Watson v. Gateway Properties LLP

Background

Robert William Watson, who was proceeding without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, sued Gateway Properties LLP; property managers Jack Vickery and Genadiy Portnoy; Gateway Properties member Jerry Salama; and Felipe Solis, whom Watson described as a superintendent. Watson’s complaint invoked federal-question jurisdiction but stated that he was asserting claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, a state statute.

Watson used the court’s general complaint form and referred to an attached “Supplemental Affidavit” for his factual allegations. The affidavit referred to Watson’s other cases, alleged employment discrimination and constitutional and defamation claims, and included allegations about people and events that were unrelated to the defendants named in this case. The court noted that none of the named defendants was mentioned in the complaint and that much of the affidavit did not appear to concern Watson.

Claims on behalf of Evelyn Watson

The caption described Robert Watson as the personal representative of Evelyn Watson, but the court found it unclear whether he intended to assert claims for her. Because Watson was not a lawyer, the court held that he could represent only his own interests. It therefore dismissed without prejudice any claims he was asserting on Evelyn Watson’s behalf.

Rule 8 and federal claims

The court held that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a short and plain statement giving each defendant fair notice of the claims and the grounds for them. Even reading the filing liberally because Watson was representing himself, the court could not determine what federal claims he was asserting against the defendants. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal of certain claims in a complaint filed without prepayment of fees.

State-law claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Watson might be asserting. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims in a case that also includes federal claims.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because the court could not determine that amendment would be futile, it granted Watson 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint correcting the identified deficiency. Any amended complaint could assert claims only on Watson’s own behalf and could not assert claims for Evelyn Watson. If Watson did not amend within the allowed time, the court stated that the clerk would be directed to enter judgment.

The court dismissed the complaint with 30 days’ leave to replead, declined supplemental jurisdiction over possible state-law claims, and directed the clerk to hold the matter open until a civil judgment was entered. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.