Yun v. City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09267
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Yun v. City of New York, Judge McMahon dismissed Yun’s constitutional-rights complaint after screening, finding probable cause, immunity, or pleading defects.
Gloria Sun Jung Yun and the defendants named in the complaint, including the City of New York, police officers, a prosecutor, judges, state motor-vehicle agencies, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and the New York City Department of Finance.
What happened
In Yun v. City of New York, Gloria Sun Jung Yun, representing herself, sued the City of New York and others under federal civil-rights laws. She alleged that police officers stopped and arrested her during two New York City traffic incidents, and sought damages and an order dismissing traffic and criminal matters.
The court found that the officers had probable cause for the arrests, that one officer was not alleged to have been involved, and that prosecutors and judges were immune from the claims described. It also held that the state motor-vehicle agencies were protected from suit in federal court and that the New York City Department of Finance could not be sued as a separate entity.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint during screening, declined to allow an amended complaint because amendment would be futile, and denied fee-free status for any appeal because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Yun v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-09267
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 19, 2019
Background
Gloria Sun Jung Yun proceeded without prepaying court fees and represented herself. She alleged that the defendants violated her federal constitutional rights. The court treated the complaint primarily as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits claims against state actors for violating federal rights.
The complaint concerned two incidents in New York City. On December 28, 2018, Officer Michael Slinkosky stopped Yun while she was driving. The complaint stated that she had a “private” license plate, was using a cell phone while driving, and refused to provide her driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. Slinkosky arrested her, and she received traffic tickets.
On June 16, 2019, Detective Baer and Officer Walkerstoddart became involved after Yun’s vehicle was parked and had a “private plate.” Walkerstoddart checked a New York motor-vehicle database and discovered that Yun’s driver’s license was suspended. Yun was arrested and charged with aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree and unlicensed driving. The opinion stated that the related criminal case was pending at that time.
Yun sought damages and an injunction requiring dismissal of existing cases and traffic tickets and lifting of the license suspension.
Legal standard
Because Yun was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court was required to read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations generously, but the complaint still had to provide enough factual information to make a claim plausible.
Claims against the police officers
The court construed Yun’s claims against Slinkosky as claims for false arrest. A false-arrest claim under § 1983 requires, among other things, that the arrest not have been legally justified. The court held that Slinkosky had probable cause because the complaint described traffic violations and stated that Yun refused to provide required identification and vehicle documents. The court therefore dismissed Yun’s claims against Slinkosky.
The court reached the same conclusion for Walkerstoddart and Baer concerning the June 16, 2019 arrest. The complaint stated that Walkerstoddart discovered that Yun’s driver’s license was suspended and that she was charged with driving-related offenses. The court held that these facts indicated probable cause and dismissed the claims against Walkerstoddart and Baer.
The complaint named Vil Alchit as a New York City police officer but did not allege facts showing that Alchit was involved in any violation. The court dismissed the claims against Alchit.
Claims against the prosecutor and judges
The court dismissed the claims against New York City District Attorney Cyrus Vance because the alleged conduct fell within the scope of prosecutorial duties connected to the criminal process. Prosecutors have absolute immunity from damages claims for that type of conduct.
The court also dismissed the claims against Magistrate Judge Moses H. Jacobs and Judge Barbara Newman. The alleged actions occurred in the course of Yun’s criminal case and within the judges’ judicial responsibilities. The court held that judicial immunity therefore applied.
Claims against government agencies
The court held that the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, the New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation were state agencies protected by the Eleventh Amendment, which generally bars suits against states and their arms in federal court when the state has not waived that protection. The court dismissed Yun’s § 1983 claims against those agencies.
The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Finance because a New York City agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued under the New York City Charter.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint under the federal screening statute governing cases filed without prepayment of fees. It declined to give Yun permission to amend because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.