Hobbs v. Evans
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00514
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hobbs v. Evans, Judge McMahon dismissed Richard Hobbs’s complaint because Officer Evans’s failure to help did not violate the Constitution.
Richard P. Hobbs’s federal complaint was dismissed, affecting his claims against Police Officer Evans of Amtrak in Penn Station, Wells Fargo Bank, and Amtrak Co.; the court also declined to consider any possible state-law claims.
What happened
In Hobbs v. Evans, Richard P. Hobbs, who uses a wheelchair and was homeless, alleged that another person took money from him at an automated teller machine in Penn Station. Hobbs said Police Officer Evans refused to respond properly or file a police report, and he claimed that Evans violated his civil rights.
The court explained that the Constitution generally does not require the government to protect people from harm caused by private individuals. It found that Hobbs’s allegations did not show that the government had taken custody of him or created or increased the danger he faced. The court also found that changing the complaint would not fix these problems.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint under the federal screening law for people allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, declined to consider any possible state-law claims, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Hobbs v. Evans · No. 1:20-cv-00514
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 3, 2020
Background
Richard P. Hobbs appeared without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that, in December 2019 or January 2020, another person took a $20 bill from him while he was using an automated teller machine in Penn Station and pulled him from his wheelchair. Hobbs said he reported the incident to Police Officer Evans, who told him that he had not been mugged and refused to file a police report. Hobbs also alleged that he had previously reported suspected illegal drug sales to police officers without receiving help. He claimed that Officer Evans violated his civil rights. The defendants named in the caption were Police Officer Evans of Amtrak in Penn Station, Wells Fargo Bank, and Amtrak Co.
Legal standard
Because Hobbs was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or part of it, if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally viable claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also had to read Hobbs’s allegations liberally because he was representing himself.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the rule that the Fourteenth Amendment generally does not require the government to protect an individual from harm caused by private citizens. It identified two exceptions: when the government takes a person into custody and limits the person’s ability to protect himself, and when government conduct affirmatively creates or increases the danger.
The court held that Hobbs’s allegations did not fit either exception. They did not show that the government had taken him into custody or that Officer Evans had actively created or increased the danger he faced. The court therefore concluded that Hobbs’s allegation that Evans refused to take a police report failed to state a claim for relief.
The court also declined to allow Hobbs to amend the complaint because it found that the defects could not be cured by an amendment.
Disposition
The court dismissed Hobbs’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Hobbs may have been asserting. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Hobbs permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.