Pierre v. New York State Department of State

Background

Jean-Gespere Pierre filed the action without a lawyer under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. He sued the New York State Department of State; the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department; the Department of Labor; the Department of “Unemployment In.”; and the Department of State Division of Licensing. The opinion states that Pierre repeated claims that FJC Security Services, Inc. discriminated against him and retaliated against him. He also alleged that the Appellate Division had “miss[ed] his claims.” The complaint contained few facts about the other defendants, although the court assumed they were related to Pierre’s employment at FJC and his later firing. Pierre sought money damages.

The opinion describes earlier administrative and court proceedings involving his employment-discrimination claims against FJC and his complaints about the handling of those matters. Those proceedings included a state administrative dismissal, federal litigation in which summary judgment was entered for FJC, and other actions that were dismissed for various reasons. The court also noted that Pierre had previously been warned that continued duplicative or frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new civil actions without paying fees.

Legal Standard

Because Pierre requested permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of an action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from that relief. The court also recognized that it must dismiss an action when subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers liberally, those filings still must provide the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dismissal

The court held that Pierre’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the state agencies were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states and their agencies from suits in federal court unless an exception applies. The court stated that New York had not waived that protection and that Congress had not removed it when it enacted § 1983. It also noted that a state or state agency is not a “person” subject to a § 1983 claim. The complaint was therefore dismissed on immunity grounds under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

The opinion does not decide whether FJC discriminated against or retaliated against Pierre. The dismissal rests on the defendants’ immunity from the claims asserted in this action.

Order to Show Cause

Because of Pierre’s litigation history and the earlier warning, the court ordered him to show cause—meaning to explain why a proposed restriction should not be entered—within 30 days. He had to submit a declaration stating good cause why he should not be barred from filing further actions in this court without prepaying fees unless he first obtained the court’s permission. The order states that if Pierre failed to submit the declaration on time, or if it did not show good cause, the restriction would be entered. The court did not impose that restriction in this order.

Other Disposition

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Pierre permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk to assign the matter to her docket, mail Pierre a copy of the order, and note service on the docket.