Etheridge v. Referee Jacob Maeroff

Background

Tamara Etheridge, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying court fees, brought claims concerning a child-custody dispute in New York County Family Court. She identified herself as the paternal grandmother of P.M., a minor child. In an earlier order, the court dismissed her amended complaint but allowed her to replead limited claims against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Education, and four employees of the New York City Administration for Children’s Services: Lisette Hernandez, Jeremiah Massey, Taiche Bryant, and Levar Folk.

Etheridge instead filed a second amended complaint naming Referee Jacob Maeroff, Family Court Clerk Juan Paez, private attorneys Jonathan Nelson and Elien Sigal, Elizabeth Rivera, the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and the “New York State Office of Family Court.” The opinion states that the latter entity does not exist and treats it as a reference to the New York State Unified Court System. The four Administration for Children’s Services employees whom the court had authorized her to sue were not named in the second amended complaint.

Rulings on the Claims

The court dismissed the claims against Maeroff, Sigal, Rivera, and the New York State Family Court for the same reasons given in the earlier order and because those claims exceeded the limited permission to amend. The court also dismissed the claims against Nelson, a private attorney, because his claims likewise exceeded the permission to amend and because private attorneys generally do not act under state authority for purposes of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Etheridge named the New York City Police Department as a defendant. Because the Police Department is an agency of the City and cannot be sued separately, the court treated those claims as claims against the City of New York. The court understood the allegations to assert false-arrest claims under Section 1983. Etheridge alleged that police officers came to her residence in response to reports connected to the custody dispute, directed her to report to a precinct concerning an alleged violation of an order of protection, and attempted to detain her during another incident.

The court held that the allegations did not state a false-arrest claim because Etheridge did not allege that an officer actually confined her or made a specific threat of confinement. The court also stated that the complaints against her could generally support probable cause for an arrest. Separately, the court held that Etheridge did not allege that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation, as required for municipal liability under Section 1983. It therefore dismissed the Section 1983 false-arrest claims against the City for failure to state a claim.

State-Law Claims and Leave to Amend

After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Etheridge might be asserting.

Because Etheridge had not previously been given permission to amend her false-arrest claims, the court granted limited leave to file a third amended complaint. The permitted pleading may assert false-arrest claims against the City of New York and individual police officers who were personally involved in the alleged false arrest. The court stated that claims outside that limited permission would be summarily dismissed. If Etheridge does not file a third amended complaint within the required time, the clerk will be directed to enter judgment dismissing the action.

Disposition

The court dismissed the second amended complaint, granted leave to replead the false-arrest claims under Section 1983 as described above, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.