Alexander v. Private Protective Services, Inc.

Background

Jeriel Alexander, appearing without a lawyer, sued Private Protective Services, Inc. He alleged that he was invited to participate in scenes for Love and Hip-Hop NY at Pier 132 in Bronx County, New York, on October 3, 2019. According to the complaint, a person named “Christian,” who worked for Private Protective Services, told Alexander that his “kind” was not welcome, ordered him to leave, and blocked him from entering. Alexander also alleged that a production manager verbally assaulted him and that someone later contacted him through Snapchat saying that the company’s supervisor had damaged his name and brand.

Alexander asserted claims for defamation, slander, harassment, and emotional distress. He also referred to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in covered public accommodations. He sought $1.5 million in damages. Alexander invoked diversity jurisdiction, but his complaint stated that Private Protective Services was incorporated in New York and had its principal place of business there, and listed an address for Alexander in New York.

Court’s Analysis

Because Alexander had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court screened his complaint under the statute governing such cases. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, or seek money from an immune defendant. It must also dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the dispute. The court said that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read generously, but they still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible and must comply with the requirement for a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

For diversity jurisdiction, the court said Alexander had to allege that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at stake. Although the requested damages exceeded $75,000, the allegations appeared to indicate that both parties were citizens of New York. The court therefore found that Alexander had not shown complete diversity. The court noted that, if he wanted to rely on diversity jurisdiction in an amended complaint, he would need to allege facts showing that he was not a New York citizen, such as facts concerning foreign citizenship or a different domicile.

For federal-question jurisdiction, the court considered Alexander’s reference to Title II. The court stated that the alleged statements by the security guard could suggest discrimination, but the complaint did not make clear whether the alleged conduct was based on race, color, religion, national origin, or some other protected characteristic. The court therefore found that Alexander failed to state a Title II claim as pleaded.

Disposition

The court granted Alexander leave to amend rather than immediately ending the case. It directed him to file an amended complaint within 60 days, identify the relevant people and their roles, describe what each defendant did, provide dates and locations, explain how his rights were violated and what injuries he suffered, identify the relief requested, and provide addresses for named defendants. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint, so any facts or claims Alexander wanted to preserve had to be included again.

The court directed the Clerk to mail the order and record service, and stated that no summons would issue at that time. It warned that if Alexander did not amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Colleen McMahon issued the order on November 12, 2019.