Patterson v. The City of New York

Background

Correon Patterson, Dayveon Patterson, and Sharita Patterson brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims against state or local officials for violations of federal rights. Sharita was appearing without a lawyer and was the only person who signed the complaint and submitted an application to proceed without paying filing fees.

The complaint alleged that, after Sharita was arrested on July 25, 2023, New York City Police Department officers began harassing and targeting the plaintiffs. It alleged that officers assaulted and falsely arrested Correon near Union Square on August 9, 2023, after he tried to learn what had happened to a stabbed friend. It also alleged that Dayveon was falsely arrested and subjected to excessive force, although the complaint did not make clear whether that incident occurred at the same time. The complaint further alleged that Correon was falsely arrested again on August 24, 2024, and that formal charges were filed against him in New York County Family Court on October 10, 2024. The plaintiffs sought $45 million in damages and an order barring further harassment or unlawful conduct.

Court’s analysis

Because Sharita was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint and dismiss it if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. It was required to read the self-represented filing liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.

The court held that Sharita could not pursue claims for Correon or Dayveon. Federal law allows a person to represent himself or herself, but a nonlawyer generally may not represent another person in federal court, including a child. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice any claims Sharita was asserting on behalf of her sons. The court noted that if Correon and Dayveon were not minors and wanted to remain plaintiffs, they would need to sign an amended complaint and submit separate applications to proceed without paying filing fees.

As to Sharita’s own claims, the complaint stated only that she had been arrested “in uniform.” The court found that this allegation did not suggest a plausible § 1983 claim and did not make clear whether Sharita intended to assert claims based on that incident or had facts supporting a claim on her own behalf.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under the federal statute governing screening of complaints filed without prepayment of fees and granted 30 days’ leave to replead. Any amended complaint had to assert claims solely on Sharita’s own behalf. If she did not file one within the permitted time, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in the action without prejudice.

The court also limited electronic access to the complaint and the order because the filings used the full names of persons who might be minors. Any later filing had to refer to the children by initials if they were minors. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The matter was to remain open on the docket until a civil judgment was entered.