Hardy v. New York State Department of Labor

Background

Richard Hardy, appearing without a lawyer, sued the New York State Department of Labor under federal-question jurisdiction and sought $300,000 in damages. The court understood the complaint as asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, along with state-law claims. The court had previously allowed Hardy to proceed without paying filing fees.

Hardy’s complaint was difficult for the court to understand. He appeared to allege that, in 2018, at a Manhattan Department of Labor office, he either applied for a Department of Labor job or applied for a Department of Labor-sponsored employment program. He alleged that Department of Labor staff retaliated against him for filing earlier lawsuits or claims, made disparaging comments about his race, and prevented him from working. He also alleged that a staff member sprayed mace in his face, tried to use a taser on him, and then called the police.

Rulings

The court dismissed Hardy’s § 1983 claims against the Department of Labor under the Eleventh Amendment and because the agency was immune from suit. The court explained that the Department of Labor is an arm of New York State, that New York had not waived its immunity, and that Congress had not removed that immunity for § 1983 claims. The court’s footnote states that this dismissal was without prejudice to any employment-discrimination or retaliation claims Hardy might assert against the Department of Labor as an employer under a federal employment-discrimination statute.

The court also explained that a person can be liable under § 1983 only if that person was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation. Hardy had not identified any individual defendants, so the court granted him leave to amend his complaint to name the staff members and describe what each person did or failed to do. The court did not permit Hardy to reassert claims that it had dismissed in the order.

Amendment requirements and other directives

The court granted Hardy 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify defendants in both the caption and the body, provide available addresses, describe the relevant facts, dates and locations, explain how each defendant violated Hardy’s rights, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. If Hardy did not know a staff member’s name, he could use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe,” but the court warned that doing so would not stop the limitations period from running.

The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. The court directed Hardy to submit it to the Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 19-CV-5291 (CM). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that the action would be dismissed if Hardy failed to comply within the allowed time without showing good cause. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not expressly state a separate disposition of Hardy’s state-law claims.