Hermo v. The City of New York
- Louis Stanton
- 1:19-cv-10471
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hermo v. City of New York, Judge Stanton dismissed the complaint because it did not state facts showing that defendants violated Hermo’s rights.
Anthony Hermo’s case was dismissed; the order also affected the City of New York and the individual defendants because the claims against them were dismissed.
What happened
Hermo v. The City of New York involved Anthony Hermo’s amended complaint against New York City and several individuals. Hermo represented himself and asked to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court had previously given Hermo permission and extra time to amend his complaint. His amended filing appeared to concern a 2001 civil-service examination and referred to the Americans with Disabilities Act, but it did not clearly explain what any defendant did to violate his rights or why he was entitled to relief.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the statute governing fee-free cases. The court declined to give Hermo another opportunity to amend because it concluded that the defects could not be corrected with another amendment.
The detailed version
- Hermo v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-10471
- Louis Stanton
- May 5, 2020
Background
Anthony Hermo filed this action against the City of New York and individuals he identified as Laura S. Mello, Millard Gonzalez, Dr. Safran, Investigator Fagan, and Betsy Gotbaum. He represented himself and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. The court had previously directed him to correct problems in his original complaint and granted two extensions of time. Hermo filed an amended complaint on February 27, 2020.
The amended complaint appeared to concern a civil-service examination that Hermo took in 2001. It included documents stating that he had failed a civil-service exam for becoming a police officer and that a fingerprint search had not disclosed a prior arrest. It also referred to the Americans with Disabilities Act and psychological interview documentation. The complaint did not clearly explain the legal claims, the facts supporting them, or the relief sought.
Court’s Analysis
Because Hermo was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal if such a complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that a complaint must be dismissed if the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court stated that it had interpreted Hermo’s self-represented filing liberally and had looked for the strongest claims suggested by the allegations. Even under that approach, however, the court found that the amended complaint contained no facts showing how the named defendants violated Hermo’s rights. It therefore concluded that the amended complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It declined to give Hermo another opportunity to amend because he had already received an opportunity to correct the pleading and the court concluded that the defects could not be cured by further amendment. The order did not decide the merits of any specific Americans with Disabilities Act claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.