Shipp v. Fink
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-00978
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Shipp v. Fink, Judge Stanton dismissed the employment-discrimination case for failing to state a claim and declined jurisdiction over possible state claims.
David M. Shipp’s claims against the Acting Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services were dismissed. Any state-law claims he may have intended to assert were not heard, and the court warned that future similar fee-free filings could require prior permission.
What happened
In Shipp v. Fink, David M. Shipp sued the acting Secretary of Health and Human Services, alleging that his former employer discriminated against him because of his race and religion. He represented himself and asked to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court had previously allowed Shipp to submit an amended complaint after finding that his original filings were confusing and did not explain how his race or religion affected employment decisions. The amended complaint remained disorganized, focused largely on events from more than a decade earlier, did not identify the relief sought, and did not explain why the case belonged in that court or was not barred by earlier litigation.
The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, declined to exercise jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and refused to allow another amendment. Judge Louis L. Stanton also warned that future similar filings could lead to a requirement that Shipp obtain permission before filing new fee-free cases about his former HHS employment.
The detailed version
- Shipp v. Fink · No. 1:25-cv-00978
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 7, 2025
Background
David M. Shipp sued Dorothy Fink, identified in the caption as the Acting Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Shipp alleged that the Department discriminated against him because of his race and religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. He was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain previously dismissed Shipp’s original complaint because it did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court had found Shipp’s submissions confusing, disorganized, repetitive, and filled with conclusory statements and irrelevant legal references. It also could not identify allegations suggesting that race or religion motivated an adverse employment decision.
The court nevertheless allowed Shipp to file one amended complaint. It directed him to allege facts showing that the Department discriminated against him in employment-related incidents in New York that were separate from those involved in his earlier cases, or otherwise to explain why venue was proper and his claims were not barred from being relitigated.
Amended Complaint
Shipp filed a 15-page, single-spaced amended complaint. The court found that it was similar to his earlier submissions. It described events from more than a decade earlier and discussed internal memoranda, agency proceedings, regulations, and legal authorities, but did not allege facts showing that the Department discriminated against him. The complaint also did not state what relief Shipp sought, explain why venue was proper in the Southern District of New York, or explain why his claims were not precluded by his extensive earlier litigation.
Ruling
The court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court concluded that the pleading still did not provide the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 and was so confused and unintelligible that its substance, if any, was not clear.
Because the court dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Shipp might have intended to assert.
The court declined to give Shipp another opportunity to amend, reasoning that he had already been given an opportunity to correct the defects and that the defects could not be cured by another amendment. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Litigation History and Warning
The court discussed Shipp’s earlier litigation concerning his employment with HHS, including proceedings in federal courts that had dismissed similar claims or otherwise ruled against him. The opinion also recounted an earlier ruling that claims concerning his 2006 termination were barred by a settlement agreement under which Shipp received $10,000 and released employment-related claims.
The court warned that, if Shipp continued filing meritless cases in that court concerning his former HHS employment, it would issue an order requiring him to explain why he should not be barred from filing new fee-free civil actions about that employment without first obtaining the court’s permission.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.