Harris v. Harris

Background

Laquan Devota Harris, appearing without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits suits for violations by state actors, and under Bivens, a theory allowing certain constitutional claims against personally involved federal officials. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The case had been transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the Southern District of New York.

Harris sued Sarah A. Harris, identified as a director; Christopher Guradino and Michael Hernandez, identified as police officers; William Fields, identified by a badge number but not otherwise identified; and “William,” identified as a director of cases. Harris alleged theft of legal documents, a bank card, and money; discrimination; a contract violation; false arrest; police misconduct; and denial of freedom of speech. He also referred to alleged violations of his “Hipea” rights, which the court understood might refer to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. He sought money damages and asked that the defendants be prosecuted and imprisoned.

Court’s analysis

Because Harris was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from immune defendants, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible. It read Harris’s self-represented complaint liberally but explained that self-represented litigants still must provide a short and plain statement of facts supporting their claims.

The court concluded that Harris did not state a colorable Bivens claim because he did not name any federal official or allege that a federal official was involved. As to the police-officer defendants, Harris did not explain what Guradino, Hernandez, or possibly Fields personally did or failed to do. As to Sarah Harris and William, the complaint did not show that they were state actors or that they acted jointly with state officials. The court therefore found that Harris had not stated claims under § 1983 as pleaded, but granted him leave to amend with facts showing each defendant’s personal involvement and, for Sarah Harris and William, facts establishing state-actor status.

The court also found that Harris’s false-arrest allegations lacked enough detail. It explained that a false-arrest claim requires facts showing intentional confinement without consent or legal justification, including facts indicating that the police lacked probable cause. A private complainant generally is not liable merely for reporting information to the police; the complaint must allege that the complainant took an active role in causing the arrest. The court granted leave to amend this claim with details about the arrest, what Sarah Harris and the officers said or did, whether the officers independently evaluated the circumstances, and whether probable cause existed.

Harris’s discrimination, police-misconduct, and speech allegations were also too vague. The court granted leave to amend those claims with facts showing discriminatory treatment based on a protected characteristic, unlawful police conduct, interference with speech, and each defendant’s involvement.

The court dismissed any HIPAA claim for failure to state a claim. It stated that the allegations did not sufficiently show a HIPAA violation and that HIPAA does not provide an individual private cause of action for a suit seeking damages. The court also dismissed claims seeking the defendants’ criminal prosecution because a private citizen cannot prosecute a federal criminal case.

Harris’s theft and contract allegations were treated as state-law claims. Because it was unclear whether Harris could state any federal claims, the court reserved judgment on whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Disposition

The court granted Harris leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include the relevant facts, dates, places, defendants’ actions, injuries, and requested relief. The court directed Harris to provide addresses for named defendants and stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Harris failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Judge Colleen McMahon signed the order.