Kilayko-Gullas v. East End Temple

Background

Cecille Kilayko-Gullas appeared without a lawyer and proceeded without prepaying filing fees. She sued East End Temple under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. The court understood her complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights by a person acting under state law.

Kilayko-Gullas alleged that she went to East End Temple on September 27, 2019, intending to join the congregation and pray. A security guard assigned to the temple stopped her from entering. After inspecting her bag and finding nothing that would prevent entry, the guard allegedly told her that the temple’s services were only for Jewish people. Kilayko-Gullas alleged that she was denied entry because she was not Jewish and because she was Asian, and that the guard violated her First Amendment right to freedom of worship.

Screening standard

Because Kilayko-Gullas was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or otherwise fell within the court’s stated dismissal requirements. The court also noted that it had to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, while still requiring a short and plain statement containing enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Court’s analysis

The court held that a § 1983 claim requires allegations showing both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and action under color of state law. Private parties generally are not state actors and ordinarily cannot be held liable under § 1983. The court recognized that a private security guard might qualify as a state actor if granted certain police powers by state or local government, but Kilayko-Gullas alleged no facts showing that the security guard or East End Temple acted as a state actor.

The court also stated that, even if the security guard had acted as a state actor, Kilayko-Gullas alleged no facts showing that the guard’s conduct resulted from an official policy of East End Temple. The court therefore dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), but granted Kilayko-Gullas 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court directed that any amended complaint name the security guard who allegedly barred her entry and allege facts showing how the guard acted as a state actor. If she also asserted a § 1983 claim against the guard’s employer, she would need to allege facts showing that an employer policy caused the constitutional violation. The order stated that failure to comply within the allowed time would result in judgment dismissing the action for failure to state a claim.