Xia v. New York City Government

Background

Shengshen Xia proceeded without a lawyer and filed the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing claims for constitutional violations by government actors. The court had previously allowed Xia to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Xia alleged that, on January 27, 2024, he reported the theft of an A4 sheet of paper and reported hotel staff for a crime related to deprivation of his rights. He alleged that Officer Fiaz M. Chowdhury failed to investigate and threatened to arrest him if he called 911 again.

Xia also referred to room checks allegedly authorized by Jocelyn Carter, a person not named as a defendant; an alleged late-night eviction on November 25, 2023; and his wife’s decision to terminate a pregnancy in December 2023. He sought an investigation, Officer Chowdhury’s arrest and resignation, and money damages. The opinion also refers to another lawsuit filed by Xia, No. 25-CV-0409 (S.D.N.Y.), involving later 911 calls and an arrest.

Screening standard

Because Xia was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court was required to read a self-represented complaint liberally, but the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a legal claim plausible under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Claims against the NYPD and First Precinct

The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Police Department and the First Precinct because, under New York law, City agencies generally cannot be sued in their own names. The court stated that Xia must assert those claims against the City of New York, which was already named as a defendant.

Claims against the City of New York

The court dismissed the claims against the City for failure to state a claim. A municipality is not liable under Section 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly acted wrongfully. Xia had to allege that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court found that the complaint did not include such allegations.

Claims against Officer Chowdhury

The court identified two claims against Officer Chowdhury and dismissed both for failure to state a claim.

First, the court held that individuals generally do not have an affirmative constitutional right to a government investigation. The court recognized narrow exceptions when the government takes a person into custody and assumes responsibility for the person’s safety, or when the government affirmatively creates or increases a danger. It found that Xia did not allege facts bringing his claim within either exception.

Second, the court treated the alleged threat to arrest Xia if he continued calling 911 as a possible First Amendment retaliation claim. Such a claim requires protected speech, action motivated by that speech, and facts showing that the action actually chilled the speech. The court said Xia could arguably satisfy the first two requirements, because reporting matters to public officials is protected and Chowdhury allegedly threatened arrest. But Xia alleged that he called the police seven times on the same day after the alleged threat, so the complaint did not show that his speech was actually chilled. The court therefore dismissed the retaliation claim.

The court also dismissed Xia’s request that Officer Chowdhury be arrested. It held that a private citizen cannot order or initiate a federal criminal prosecution because the decision to prosecute belongs to prosecutors.

Claims involving other people

The court dismissed any claim against the City Comptroller based on an alleged failure to investigate Xia’s complaint because Xia had no general constitutional right to such an investigation and did not allege either exception to that rule.

The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment claims involving Jocelyn Carter because Xia did not allege that Carter acted under state law. The court stated that private parties generally are not liable under Section 1983 and that the Constitution generally regulates government conduct, not private conduct.

The court dismissed the eviction claim because Xia did not provide enough facts, identify the people involved, or otherwise explain how a named defendant was responsible. The court expressly dismissed this claim without prejudice to asserting it in an amended complaint. It also noted that, if Xia sought damages related to the eviction, the opinion directed him to pursue that claim in his other lawsuit.

Disposition and leave to amend

The court dismissed the complaint under the statute governing screening of claims filed without prepaying fees, with 30 days’ leave to replead. It granted Xia permission to file an amended complaint detailing his claims, because the court found amendment would not necessarily be futile. The court directed that the case remain open while amendment was possible and stated that the Clerk would enter judgment if Xia did not file an amended complaint within the allowed time.