Thomas v. City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11028
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Thomas v. City of New York, Judge McMahon dismissed James Thomas’s complaint during prisoner screening, allowing thirty days to replead.
James Thomas’s claims were dismissed at the prisoner-screening stage. His claims against the City of New York, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Supreme Court, and the White House did not proceed as pleaded. Any potential Federal Tort Claims Act claims were dismissed without prejudice, and he received thirty days to file an amended complaint.
What happened
In James Thomas v. City of New York, James Thomas, who was incarcerated, sued the City of New York, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s director, the United States Supreme Court, and the White House. He alleged due-process violations and excessive force connected to events he said occurred in the Bronx Supreme Court between about 2013 and 2019. He sought to be left alone and $1 in damages.
The court dismissed the claims against the City because Thomas did not provide enough facts or show that a city policy or practice caused the alleged violations. It dismissed claims against the federal entities and employees because of immunity from suit. It dismissed any claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act without prejudice because Thomas did not allege that he first completed the required administrative process. The court also dismissed his apparent challenge to his conviction because he did not allege that he had exhausted available state remedies.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statutes but gave Thomas thirty days to file an amended complaint. The court said an amended complaint must identify who violated his rights, what happened, when and where it happened, and why he was entitled to relief. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-11028
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 17, 2020
Background
James Thomas, who was incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility and proceeded without a lawyer, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute for violations committed under state law. He named the City of New York; the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the United States Supreme Court; and the “White House.” He alleged due-process violations and excessive force. He stated that the underlying events occurred in the Bronx Supreme Court “on or about 2013-2019,” and alleged that he received a 17-year sentence, was subjected to force, was force-fed by Department of Correction personnel working for the FBI, and suffered injuries involving drugs allegedly placed in his food. He requested to be left alone and $1 in damages.
The court had previously allowed Thomas to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. Because he was a prisoner seeking relief against governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and related statutes. The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Claims Against the City of New York
A claim against a municipality under Section 1983 requires facts showing both a constitutional or federal-rights violation and a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused the violation. The court found that Thomas did not provide enough facts to explain what happened or who was involved, and did not show that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged violations. The court therefore dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the City for failure to state a claim.
Claims Against Federal Entities and Employees
The court held that sovereign immunity generally barred Thomas’s claims against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Supreme Court, and the White House. Thomas had not identified a waiver of the United States’ immunity for those claims. The court therefore dismissed those claims as barred by sovereign immunity.
Because Thomas sought money damages for injuries allegedly caused by federal employees, the court also construed the complaint as potentially raising claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. That statute waives immunity for certain tort claims against the United States, but requires a claimant first to submit an administrative claim and receive a final written decision, or wait six months without one. Thomas did not allege that he completed this process. The court dismissed without prejudice any claims that might arise under the Federal Tort Claims Act for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Challenge to the Conviction
The court understood Thomas’s allegations as possibly challenging the validity of his conviction. It explained that a state prisoner must use a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge the fact or duration of confinement, and must generally exhaust available state remedies first. Because Thomas did not allege that he had exhausted those remedies, the court dismissed the portion of the submission seeking that type of relief. The court stated that he could file a § 2254 petition after exhausting available state remedies.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statutes and granted Thomas thirty days’ leave to replead. Any amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and would need to include all facts and claims Thomas wished to pursue. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
Judge Colleen McMahon signed the order on January 17, 2020.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.