Blackman v. US Marshals

Background

Amirah Blackman filed the action without a lawyer and was permitted to proceed without prepaying court fees. She sued four federal defendants—the U.S. Marshals, “FBI Yonkers Police,” “US Attorney General White Plains,” and “US Attorney 28 Liberty Street New York”—and two state defendants, the Yonkers Family Court and the White Plains Family Court. Her complaint also discussed an individual named Jamal, but she did not list him in the case caption.

Blackman alleged that Jamal and others had subjected her to attempted murder, wiretapping, stalking, phone tracking or hacking, rape, molestation, fraud, harassment, and other abuse. She also alleged that an unidentified defendant placed a tracking monitor in her body and that officials failed to arrest or protect her. The court noted that the complaint used fragmented sentences and did not clearly identify the facts supporting particular claims against particular defendants.

Court’s Analysis

The court screened the complaint under the statute governing lawsuits filed without prepaying fees. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or otherwise fall within the statute’s dismissal grounds. The court also considered whether it had authority to hear the claims and whether the complaint complied with Rule 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court dismissed the claims against the federal defendants under sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally prevents suits against the federal government and its agencies unless the government has waived that protection. The court found that Blackman had not alleged a waiver. It also stated that, even if she intended to sue individual federal employees for failing to protect her, the Constitution generally does not require government officials to investigate or protect an individual from harm in the circumstances alleged.

The court dismissed the claims against the Yonkers and White Plains Family Courts under the Eleventh Amendment. It treated those courthouses as arms of New York State and stated that New York had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it for these claims under Section 1983, the federal civil-rights statute involved in the complaint.

The court also found that the allegations concerning Jamal and possible family-court proceedings did not comply with Rule 8 because they were not stated clearly and concisely enough for the court to determine whether Blackman could state a claim. The court did not determine that the underlying allegations were true or false.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment. It granted Blackman 30 days to file an amended complaint identifying named defendants and stating facts that comply with Rule 8. If she did not file an amended complaint within that period, the court said the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. Judge Kimba M. Wood directed the Clerk to keep the action open until a civil judgment is entered.