Sterling v. The City of New York

Background

Rose Sterling filed this action without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. The court’s March 13, 2025 order had dismissed the original action but allowed Sterling 30 days to file an amended complaint asserting specified claims. Those claims included certain claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for constitutional violations caused by state or local government actors; claims concerning alleged interference with her parental rights; and employment-discrimination claims under § 1983 or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The earlier order did not allow Sterling to reassert claims that had already been dismissed on the merits or claims dismissed without permission to amend.

Sterling filed an amended complaint on April 16, 2025, and later moved to submit additional exhibits. The court granted that motion and treated the additional materials as a supplement to the amended complaint. Sterling sued the City of New York, which she also referred to as the “Local Government.”

Claims and analysis

The court stated that it was required to dismiss a complaint filed without paying the filing fee if the complaint was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or presented claims over which the court lacked jurisdiction. The court also stated that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court did not reconsider claims that had already been addressed in the March 13, 2025 order. It considered only claims Sterling had been allowed to replead and had included in the amended complaint or supplement.

For Sterling’s § 1983 claims against the City arising from the alleged accusation of child abuse and removal of her son from her care, the court found that she alleged no facts explaining why those claims were timely or why the limitations period should be extended. The court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim.

For other § 1983 claims against the City, including claims arising from alleged actions by the City’s Administration for Children’s Services and employment-discrimination claims under § 1983, the court found that Sterling had not alleged facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of her federal constitutional rights. The court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim.

The court also interpreted Sterling’s employment-discrimination allegations as claims under Title VII because she did not name an individual state actor and was representing herself. The court found that she had not alleged facts showing that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a substantial or motivating factor in an alleged adverse employment action by the City as employer or prospective employer. It dismissed those claims as well. The court further stated that Sterling’s retaliation allegations lacked enough facts to support a claim under either § 1983 or Title VII.

Disposition

The court concluded that Sterling had already been given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies and had not done so. It therefore declined to grant another opportunity to amend. The court granted the motion to submit additional exhibits, dismissed the action for the reasons stated in the March 13, 2025 order and this order, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Sterling fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.