Yourman v. Meyers

Background

Zev Yourman appeared without a lawyer and sought damages from Clause Meyers, Bryan Flodman, MEYERSUSA, Grain Bar, the Agern Restaurant, Tyshawn Atkins, and unidentified defendants. He alleged that, on January 29, 2019, an unidentified Grain Bar employee refused to accept cash for a food purchase at Grand Central Terminal. After a disagreement, he alleged that the employee made threats, and that the employee and Atkins physically confronted him. Yourman further alleged that they falsely told Metropolitan Transportation Authority police officers that he had assaulted them and had acted disruptively and threateningly. Police arrested him and charged him with unspecified offenses, but the charges were dropped on July 8, 2019.

Yourman attributed these events to the defendants' alleged failure to properly train, supervise, or vet employees and to an alleged policy of not allowing cash payments. He stated that he was on disability, had a limited fixed income, and used cash. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.

Americans with Disabilities Act Claims

The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It explained that a private individual may obtain only an injunction—not damages—for a violation of a right under Title III. The court also found that Yourman alleged no facts suggesting that the defendants discriminated against him because of his disability, which is required for a Title III claim. It therefore dismissed the Title III claims for failure to state a claim for relief.

Federal Civil-Rights Claims

Yourman also invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits claims for violations of federal rights by persons acting under state authority. The court explained that private parties generally are not state actors, although a private person may qualify if he or she willfully participates in joint activity with the government or its agents.

For a § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim, a plaintiff must allege that criminal proceedings were initiated or continued maliciously and without probable cause, and that the proceedings ended in the plaintiff's favor. A private person who merely reports suspected criminal conduct to police generally is not a state actor. The court stated that the private defendants' alleged false statements to police, the unsupported assertion that Atkins participated in malicious prosecution, and the lack of allegations explaining how the other defendants acted as state actors were insufficient to state either a § 1983 claim or a § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim.

The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim. Because Yourman was representing himself, the court granted him leave to file an amended complaint alleging sufficient facts to state a § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim against at least one defendant.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action but granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the order. If Yourman did not comply, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the federal claims for failure to state a claim and would decline to consider the state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.