Rodriguez v. Winski

Background

The case concerned alleged mistreatment of journalists covering the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York City during 2011 and 2012. The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), described in the opinion as a New York corporation dedicated to advancing visual journalism, was added as a plaintiff in 2012 and eventually became the only remaining plaintiff. The remaining defendants were the City of New York; former Mayor Michael Bloomberg; former Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly; and several NYPD officers.

NPPA’s Second Amended Complaint alleged that defendants violated its members’ rights under the First Amendment and Sections 8 and 12 of Article I of the New York Constitution by interfering with members’ efforts to record police actions and by preventing them from reaching publicly accessible protest locations. The complaint identified members Stephanie Keith and Robert Stolarik in connection with several incidents. NPPA also alleged that it spent time and resources supporting members who were arrested or criminally charged while covering the protests.

Organizational Standing

The court first considered whether NPPA had standing, meaning a sufficient personal injury that permits a federal court to hear a case. NPPA asserted organizational standing, claiming that it had been injured directly by spending resources advocating for members and helping members respond to criminal charges.

The court held that NPPA’s alleged resource expenditures did not establish standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief. Those expenditures described past injury, and NPPA did not show a continuing or imminent injury that prospective relief could address. The 2018 NYPD message reminding officers not to interfere with properly credentialed press members did not establish an ongoing violation or a basis for equitable relief.

The court also held that NPPA had not provided enough specific facts to establish organizational standing for compensatory damages. The complaint did not explain how much time or money NPPA spent, how many members it assisted, or whether NPPA spent resources assisting Keith, Stolarik, or members connected with the Zuccotti Park incident. The court concluded that NPPA had not shown a perceptible impairment of its ordinary advocacy activities. It therefore dismissed NPPA’s claim for compensatory damages for lack of standing.

Associational Standing

NPPA also asserted associational standing, which allows an organization to sue on behalf of members when the members could sue themselves, the interests involved relate to the organization’s purpose, and neither the claims nor requested relief requires individual members to participate.

The court found that NPPA’s allegations did not satisfy this test. Keith had settled her claims and consented to dismissal with prejudice, so alleged harm to her could not support NPPA’s associational standing. As to Stolarik, the court assumed that he might have suffered sufficient harm but concluded that his individual participation would be necessary because the claim depended on the details of his interaction with NYPD officers. The court therefore dismissed all claims NPPA sought to bring on behalf of its members.

Section 1983 and State-Law Claims

The court separately held that, under Second Circuit precedent, an organization could not assert its members’ personal rights through claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court therefore concluded that NPPA could not bring the members’ § 1983 claims.

The remaining claims based on the New York Constitution depended on supplemental jurisdiction, which permits a federal court to hear related state-law claims. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims that NPPA sought to bring on behalf of its members. The court did not decide the merits of whether NPPA members might have separate causes of action under the New York Constitution.

Disposition

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted defendants’ motion to dismiss NPPA’s Second Amended Complaint for lack of standing. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for defendants and close the case. The opinion does not state that the motion was granted with or without prejudice. The date printed in the supplied opinion text is partially illegible; this summary uses the supplied filing date, March 12, 2020.