Lopez v. The Heritage of Pride, Inc.

Background

Mariah Lopez filed the action without a lawyer and was permitted to proceed without paying filing fees. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction and identified the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She alleged that she had contacted Heritage of Pride about competing or partnering for events and sponsorship opportunities connected with New York City Pride, World Pride, or Stonewall 50th. She alleged that the defendants stalled her efforts as a form of market suppression.

Lopez sought an injunction barring the defendants from preventing her from marching in the Pride march, stopping the New York City Police Department from issuing 2020 parade permits while the case was pending, and requiring disability accommodations such as rest centers and priority movement lanes for people with service dogs. She also sought to stop the parade if the defendants had ignored the ADA or antitrust laws.

Screening standard

Because Lopez was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed by people without lawyers generously, those complaints still must provide enough factual detail to make a legally plausible claim.

Claims against Heritage of Pride and Interpride

The court treated Lopez’s constitutional allegations against the two private organizations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Such a claim requires a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. The court explained that private conduct can sometimes count as state action when the private entity is compelled or controlled by the government, works jointly with the government, or performs a function delegated by the government. Lopez did not allege facts showing that either organization’s conduct was attributable to the government. The court therefore dismissed her § 1983 claims against Heritage of Pride and Interpride.

The court also considered the antitrust allegations under the Clayton Act’s private-right-of-action provision, because the Sherman Act provision Lopez identified does not itself provide a private right of action. A claim based on monopolization requires allegations of monopoly power in a relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power. The court found that Lopez’s allegations did not support an inference that Heritage of Pride or Interpride engaged in monopolistic activity. She therefore failed to state a Clayton Act claim.

The court addressed the ADA’s provisions concerning employment, public entities, and public accommodations. It held that the complaint did not state an ADA claim because, although Lopez identified herself as a person with a disability, she did not describe the disability or allege facts showing that Heritage of Pride or Interpride discriminated or retaliated against her because of it. The court dismissed the ADA claims for failure to state a claim.

Claims against the New York City Police Department

The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Police Department because a New York City agency generally is not an entity that can be sued. The court also found that the complaint contained no allegations of wrongdoing by the Police Department. It declined to interpret the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York.

Possible state-law claims and jurisdiction

Although Lopez did not expressly assert state-law claims, the court considered whether the complaint could support them under diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires citizens of different states and a claimed amount exceeding $75,000. The court found that Lopez and Heritage of Pride were both identified as being in New York, which defeated complete diversity. It also found that Lopez alleged no facts plausibly showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court concluded that it lacked diversity jurisdiction over any state-law claims she might have intended to bring.

Disposition

The court dismissed Lopez’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It denied her request for injunctive relief as moot. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.