Guaman v. Rockland County Sheriff Department
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:19-cv-11663
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Judge Karas dismissed Maria Juana Quizhpi Guaman v. Rockland County without prejudice because the complaint did not state a claim.
Maria Juana Quizhpi Guaman’s Fourth Amendment damages case against Rockland County was dismissed without prejudice after the court found that the pleadings did not allege the County’s personal involvement and she did not cure that deficiency.
What happened
Maria Juana Quizhpi Guaman sued Rockland County, seeking damages for alleged violations of her Fourth Amendment rights. She was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee.
The court gave Guaman an opportunity to explain why the case should not be dismissed, identifying the failure to allege Rockland County’s personal involvement in the constitutional violation. Her additional affidavit did not address that problem, and she did not provide a further response after receiving an extension.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas dismissed the case without prejudice under the federal screening statute for failing to state a claim. The court also directed the clerk to mail Guaman a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Guaman v. Rockland County Sheriff Department · No. 7:19-cv-11663
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 24, 2020
Background
Maria Juana Quizhpi Guaman brought the case against Rockland County, seeking damages for alleged violations of her rights under the Fourth Amendment. She filed the complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee on December 19, 2019. The court granted that status on January 21, 2020.
Guaman initially named the Rockland County Sheriff’s Department as the defendant. The court substituted Rockland County as the defendant, citing its duty to read filings by people without lawyers liberally and its authority to substitute parties on appropriate terms.
Screening and response
The court issued an order requiring Guaman to explain why the case should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. The court identified a failure to allege the defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation as a pleading deficiency. Guaman requested more time and later filed an affidavit giving additional details about the incident, but the affidavit did not address the identified deficiency. After the court granted an extension until March 16, 2020, Guaman provided no further response.
Ruling
The court dismissed the case without prejudice for substantially the reasons stated in its earlier order. The order did not state that the dismissal was with prejudice. The clerk was directed to mail Guaman a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.