Figman v. New York City of New York

Background

Dawn Figman brought the action without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. The court granted that request. She asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 against New York City of New York, the Patrolman’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York, and City of New York FDNY. She sought equitable relief, $750,000 in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and unspecified additional relief.

Figman’s complaint described alleged racial and religious harassment, violence, fraud, retaliation, stalking, and other misconduct involving people she identified as employees of government agencies and other entities. The court concluded that the allegations did not identify what any particular defendant did or failed to do that violated Figman’s rights.

Court’s analysis

Because Figman was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal if the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a complaint must provide enough factual detail to make liability plausible under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers generously, those complaints still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court dismissed the complaint under Rule 8 because it could not determine what any defendant allegedly did to violate Figman’s rights.

For the claim under § 1985, which addresses conspiracies to deprive people of equal legal protection, the court held that Figman did not allege an agreement, the details of any conspiracy, or specific acts carried out to advance one. Because a § 1986 claim depends on a valid § 1985 claim, the court dismissed the § 1986 claims as well.

The court separately addressed the § 1983 claims against New York City of New York. To hold a municipality liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court found that Figman alleged no facts showing such a policy, custom, or practice and dismissed those claims.

The court also found that the complaint lacked any arguable basis in law or fact and described the allegations as irrational. On that basis, it dismissed the complaint under the federal screening statute. The opinion’s conclusion contains an unreadable statutory citation after the words “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §,” but the body identifies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as a basis for dismissal.

Disposition

The court dismissed Figman’s complaint. It declined to grant leave to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. Judge Louis L. Stanton therefore ended the action without deciding the merits of any particular alleged civil-rights violation.