Allen v. The City of New York

Background

Windsor Allen appeared without a lawyer and brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, other federal laws, and state law. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights by persons acting under state law. Allen sought money damages, declarations about his rights, and court orders requiring action. The defendants included the City of New York; the New York City Police Department; the New York City Department of Investigation; individual police, investigation, and prosecution personnel; the Office of the New York County District Attorney; the Manhattan Forensic Psychiatry Court Clinic and its staff; and individual Assistant District Attorneys.

Allen alleged that in 2011 he tried to give law-enforcement officials information about possible criminal or terrorist activity, but was arrested and prosecuted. The opinion states that it was unclear whether he was convicted. Allen alleged that a second trial occurred in May 2017 and identified relevant events occurring from November 10, 2011, through May 18, 2020. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.

Screening standard

Because Allen was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations generously, the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement with enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Claims seeking criminal prosecution

The court dismissed any claims seeking the criminal prosecution of the defendants or other people. A private citizen cannot prosecute a criminal case in federal court, and private citizens have no legally recognized interest in whether another person is prosecuted.

Office of the New York County District Attorney

The court dismissed Allen’s § 1983 claims against the Office of the New York County District Attorney under Eleventh Amendment immunity. That doctrine generally protects states and state instrumentalities from suits in federal court. The court stated that the office was being sued because of its decision to prosecute Allen, that Congress had not removed New York’s immunity for § 1983 claims, and that New York had not waived that immunity.

Assistant District Attorneys

The court dismissed Allen’s § 1983 claims for damages against the Assistant District Attorneys under prosecutorial immunity. Prosecutors are generally immune from damages suits for acts within their prosecutorial duties that are closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court found that Allen’s claims against the Assistant District Attorneys arose from their prosecution of him.

Time limits and prosecution-related claims

The court explained that § 1983 claims in New York generally have a three-year limitations period. A false-arrest claim generally begins when the arrest occurs, while a malicious-prosecution claim generally does not begin until the criminal case ends in a way that indicates the plaintiff’s innocence.

Allen stated that he was arrested in 2011, making it appear that the limitations period for a false-arrest claim ended in 2014, although he did not file this case until May 19, 2020. He did not provide facts showing why his false-arrest claims were timely. He also did not describe the result of the criminal prosecution or whether it ended in his favor. The court therefore granted him leave to amend to allege facts showing that his false-arrest claims were timely and that his malicious-prosecution claims had accrued and were timely. The court did not make a final determination on those issues in this order.

Personal involvement of individual defendants

To state a § 1983 claim against an individual, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the individual was personally and directly involved in the alleged violation. A person cannot be held liable merely because that person supervised someone else who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Allen named many individual defendants but generally did not explain how they were personally involved, apart from the Assistant District Attorneys. The court granted leave to amend so that Allen could identify the individuals who were involved and allege facts describing their personal involvement.

City agencies, the Clinic, the City, and H+H

The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Police Department and the Department of Investigation because city agencies are not separate entities that can be sued in this context. It also dismissed the claims against the Clinic because the Clinic was not a proper defendant for § 1983 claims.

For claims against the City of New York or NYC Health + Hospitals, which operates the Clinic, the court explained that alleging wrongdoing by an employee or agent is not enough. Allen had to allege that a policy, custom, or practice of the City or NYC Health + Hospitals caused the violation of his constitutional rights. Because he alleged no such facts, the court granted leave to amend to name the City or NYC Health + Hospitals and provide facts supporting municipal liability.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Allen leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint had to identify each defendant in the caption and the statement of claim, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, explain the alleged rights violations and injuries, identify defendants’ addresses, and state the relief requested. Allen could use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for an unknown defendant, but doing so would not stop the limitations period from running.

The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and Allen was instructed not to repeat claims dismissed by the order. The court stated that if he failed to amend within the allowed time without showing good cause, it would dismiss the federal claims under the statute governing screening of complaints filed without prepayment of fees and would decline to consider the state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction. No summons issued at that time.