Jeanty v. Rockland County

Background

Kervin Jeanty, representing himself, sued Rockland County; the Town of Orangetown; JWEZ NY, Inc.; Office Evolution Corp.; Mark Hemmeter; Jay Wezner; Donald Butterworth; Patti Harrison; and John and Jane Does 1–8. He invoked 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, which provide certain federal civil-rights claims. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees, so it screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Jeanty alleged that, on June 3, 2022, defendants forced him out of an office where he said he lived under a month-to-month lease or contract, without a court order. He also alleged that Rockland County’s Department of Social Services denied him shelter and that a police officer drove him, with his belongings, to a shelter in White Plains, New York. He claimed violations of due process, equal protection, and the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. He alleged emotional distress and sought $50 million in damages.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court held that the complaint did not state a plausible claim under Section 1983. It did not explain what occurred, identify what each defendant did or failed to do, or connect each defendant’s conduct to a constitutional violation. The court also noted that some defendants appeared to be private individuals or entities, and the complaint did not allege facts showing that they acted for the state. For claims against Rockland County and the Town of Orangetown, Jeanty did not allege a governmental policy, custom, or practice that caused a violation of his rights.

The court further held that the allegations did not support an inference that any defendant violated Jeanty’s due-process, equal-protection, or Fourth Amendment rights. Jeanty’s statement that defendants had a “meeting of the minds” was too conclusory to state a conspiracy claim under Section 1985 because it did not describe overt acts or discriminatory intent. Because a valid Section 1985 claim is required for a Section 1986 claim, the Section 1986 claim also failed.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Jeanty may have been asserting after dismissing the federal claims. The opinion also noted that landlord-tenant claims and any request to review or interfere with state-court proceedings could raise separate jurisdictional problems, but it did not resolve such claims on that basis.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim, with leave to replead within 30 days. The court stated that if Jeanty did not file an amended complaint within that period, the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment dismissing the action. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jeanty permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Judge Kimba M. Wood directed the Clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.