Avent v. Unknown Charity Ass. Att. Generals

Background

Reuben Avent, appearing without a lawyer, sued New York Attorney General Letitia James, unidentified Assistant Attorneys General, Biz Central, and Amber Bigica. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and state law. Avent alleged that he hired Biz Central on June 24, 2019, to help register African World-Wide Unity, Inc. as a nonprofit and obtain a charitable solicitation registration number. He said Biz Central employee Amber Bigica told him that technical problems involving a new employer identification number delayed the registration process. Avent alleged instead that Bigica did not file the registration or acted together with the New York Attorney General’s Office to delay or deny it because of his race.

The court had previously allowed Avent to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It reviewed the complaint under the law requiring dismissal of a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Rulings on the Claims

Claims against state officials. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars Avent’s claims for damages against Letitia James and the unidentified Assistant Attorneys General in their official capacities. New York had not waived that immunity, and Congress had not removed it for claims under Section 1983. The court therefore dismissed those claims.

The court also found that Avent did not allege facts showing James’s personal involvement in the events. A supervisor cannot be held liable under Section 1983 solely because someone working under that supervisor allegedly violated a person’s rights. The court further held that Avent’s allegations that James or her subordinates discriminated against him because of race were conclusory and did not plausibly show that race caused the registration delay. Those Section 1983 claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Avent’s Section 1981 claims against the state defendants were dismissed without leave to replead. The court explained that Section 1983 is the exclusive federal damages remedy for Section 1981 rights violations by state governmental units and that Section 1981 does not provide a separate private damages action against state actors.

Claims against Biz Central and Bigica. The court held that Biz Central and Bigica were private parties, not government employees. A Section 1983 claim generally requires conduct under color of state law, meaning action attributable to the government. The court found Avent’s allegation that they colluded with the Attorney General’s Office lacked factual support and therefore did not adequately plead that they were state actors. The Section 1983 claims against them failed to state a claim.

For Section 1981, Avent had to allege that the defendants intentionally discriminated against him because of race in connection with a protected contractual activity. The court found that he alleged an agreement with Biz Central to register his organization and obtain the registration number, but provided no factual basis for his assertion that any failure or delay was racially motivated. The court therefore found that the Section 1981 claims against Biz Central and Bigica did not state a claim.

Leave to Amend and Final Directions

The court stated that a self-represented plaintiff ordinarily should receive at least one opportunity to amend when the complaint might support a valid claim. It found amendment futile for damages claims against state employees in their official capacities, Section 1981 claims against state employees, and Section 1983 claims against private parties. Nevertheless, because the complaint gave a limited indication that a valid claim might be possible, the court granted Avent leave to amend his remaining claims.

The amended complaint had to identify the relevant people and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations, explain how the conduct violated Avent’s rights, describe his injuries, and state the requested relief. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. Avent had 60 days to file it. If he failed to comply without showing good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim and for asserting claims against immune defendants. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.