Wynder v. Linn
Kenneth N. Wynder, Jr. v. Robert Linn; Steven Banks; Renee Campion; Marjorie Landa; Maryanne Mullany; New York City Office of Labor Relations; Office of the New York City Comptroller’s Office
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-02961
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Kenneth N. Wynder, Jr. v. Robert Linn, Judge Stanton dismissed Wynder’s federal claims and denied leave to amend.
Kenneth N. Wynder, Jr.’s federal civil-rights action was dismissed. Claims against the New York City Office of Labor Relations and the Office of the New York City Comptroller’s Office were dismissed because the agencies cannot be sued; claims against Robert Linn, Steven Banks, Renee Campion, Marjorie Landa, and Maryanne Mullany were dismissed without prejudice under the rule barring civil-rights claims that would undermine an existing conviction. Any state-law claims were left for another court or proceeding because supplemental jurisdiction was declined.
What happened
Kenneth N. Wynder, Jr. v. Robert Linn concerns a complaint by Wynder, a federal prisoner, against New York City officials and two city agencies. He alleged that they conspired to harm him, made false statements, violated his right to fair process, and helped cause his prosecution and imprisonment.
The court dismissed claims against the Office of Labor Relations and the Comptroller’s Office because those city agencies cannot be sued. It also dismissed claims against the individual defendants because success would undermine Wynder’s criminal conviction, which had not been overturned. The court declined to consider any remaining state-law claims.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, dismissed the claims against the individual defendants without prejudice, directed entry of judgment, and denied leave to amend.
The detailed version
- Wynder v. Linn · No. 1:25-cv-02961
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 10, 2025
Background
Kenneth N. Wynder, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, sued New York City officials and the New York City Office of Labor Relations and Comptroller’s Office under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants conspired to harm and defame him while he was president of the Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association, unlawfully accused him of stealing New York City contributions, interfered with the union’s benefits, provided false information to federal investigators, and gave false testimony at his criminal trial. He sought a declaration that the defendants violated his rights and at least $50 million in compensatory damages.
Court records described in the opinion show that Wynder was convicted after a jury trial of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy to commit tax evasion. He received a 40-month prison sentence and was ordered to pay forfeiture and restitution. The Second Circuit affirmed his conviction on August 7, 2025.
Legal standard
Because Wynder was a prisoner proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a plausible claim for relief.
City agencies, the City, and official-capacity claims
The court dismissed the claims against the Office of Labor Relations and the Comptroller’s Office because, under the New York City Charter, those city agencies do not have the legal capacity to be sued.
To the extent Wynder intended to sue New York City itself, the court also dismissed those claims. A city is not automatically liable for an employee’s alleged misconduct; the plaintiff must allege that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court found that Wynder had not alleged such a policy, custom, or practice.
The court treated claims against the individual officials in their official capacities as claims against the City and dismissed them for the same reason.
Individual-capacity claims
The court construed Wynder’s claims against Robert Linn, Steven Banks, Renee Campion, Marjorie Landa, and Maryanne Mullany as claims for conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, fabrication of evidence, and malicious prosecution.
The court held that these claims were barred by the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. That rule generally prevents a person from obtaining damages under § 1983 for conduct that would necessarily show that an existing criminal conviction or sentence is invalid, unless the conviction or sentence has already been overturned or otherwise invalidated. The court found that Wynder’s allegations—that the defendants fabricated evidence, made false statements, and helped secure his conviction—would necessarily call his conviction into question. Because his conviction had been affirmed on appeal and had not otherwise been invalidated, the court dismissed these claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
The court stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to relief Wynder might seek through the appellate process or a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
State-law claims
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, because it had dismissed the federal claims and the case was at an early stage.
Leave to amend and disposition
The court denied leave to amend because an amended complaint could not cure the defect while Wynder’s conviction remained valid. Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, dismissed the claims against Robert Linn, Steven Banks, Renee Campion, Marjorie Landa, and Maryanne Mullany without prejudice, declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, and denied leave to amend.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.