Jamiel v. De Blasio

Background

Akeel Abdul Jamiel, appearing without a lawyer, sued Mayor Bill de Blasio and the City of New York. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that the defendants were failing to safeguard him and other New Yorkers from illegal immigrants. He described the mayor’s conduct as negligence and referred to violations involving equal protection, security, occupations, and living conditions. He alleged that he could not find or keep a job, could not support himself or keep housing, and was forced to become homeless and receive public assistance. He sought $85,000,000 in damages.

The court also treated a letter Jamiel filed with the complaint as a supplement to the complaint. Before this dismissal, the court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.

Legal standards

Because Jamiel was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under the screening statute, the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or were outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that federal courts may hear only cases authorized by the Constitution and federal statutes.

The court discussed standing, which requires a plaintiff to show a concrete and particular injury, a connection between that injury and the defendants’ conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. A generalized complaint about government operations, shared by the public generally, is not enough to establish standing.

Court’s analysis

The court said Jamiel’s reference to “equal protection of law” suggested that he intended to assert a federal constitutional claim. But the complaint did not identify what specific laws he expected the mayor or City to enforce. The court further stated that, even if those laws had been identified, government officials generally have no federal constitutional duty to enforce laws, and federal litigation cannot be used to compel them to do so.

The court separately concluded that Jamiel lacked standing. It found that his allegations described only a generalized grievance about the mayor’s and City’s failure to take unspecified action concerning illegal immigration. In the court’s view, he had not alleged a concrete and particularized injury caused by the defendants’ actions or omissions. Without standing, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court recognized that complaints filed without a lawyer are generally read generously and that a plaintiff is usually given at least one opportunity to amend when a valid claim might be stated. It concluded, however, that the defects here could not be cured by amendment because the claim was frivolous on its face.

Disposition

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and as frivolous. The court declined to grant leave to amend. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jamiel permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.