Madison v. Banks

Background

Malcolm Madison, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued Steven A. Banks, the Commissioner of the Department of Homeless Services, and the City of New York. He alleged that his constitutional and civil rights were violated while he stayed in homeless shelters, and sought damages and injunctive relief.

Madison alleged that, while staying at Harry’s Place and CAMBA Housing in Brooklyn, he was assaulted, falsely accused of misconduct, and deprived of property. He alleged that shelter staff or other people associated with the shelters ignored his complaints, failed to investigate assaults and stolen property, and failed to protect him from further attacks. He also alleged that, after a later assault, security officers and Department of Homeless Services police labeled him a “snitch” and told others to disregard his future complaints. Madison sought $100,000,000 in damages and a “decent apartment.”

The court had previously dismissed claims against Commissioner Banks and the Department of Homeless Services, allowed Madison to amend, and later directed that the City be added as a defendant. Defendants Banks and the City moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Madison filed additional complaints and other papers concerning later incidents at a different shelter; the court treated those filings as requests to amend further.

Legal standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted nonconclusory factual allegations as true and interpreted Madison’s self-represented filings liberally, but explained that a complaint must include specific facts making liability plausible rather than merely stating legal conclusions.

Federal claims

The court understood Madison to be asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows a person to sue for certain violations of federal rights by someone acting under state authority. A claim against an individual requires a federal-rights violation and the individual’s personal involvement. The court found that Madison alleged no actions by Commissioner Banks himself. Madison alleged only that he submitted complaints to a woman at the Department of Homeless Services office whose last name was “Banks,” and the complaint did not identify her as Commissioner Banks.

The court also addressed any claim against Commissioner Banks in his official capacity. Such a claim is treated as a claim against the City. To proceed against the City under § 1983, Madison had to plausibly allege that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violations. The court found that allegations about disregarded complaints, investigations, or actions by individual shelter employees did not establish such a City policy, custom, or practice.

The court therefore granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal claims in the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, as to Commissioner Banks in both his individual and official capacities and as to the City.

State-law claims

To the extent the amended complaint asserted state-law claims, including possible claims involving theft or assault, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The court stated that the decision did not prevent Madison from pursuing those matters in state court or through administrative channels.

Further amendment

The court denied Madison’s motion for leave to amend again. Although self-represented litigants ordinarily receive a reasonable opportunity to correct a deficient complaint, the court found further amendment futile because Madison had already been instructed to identify who violated his rights and what each person did. The later filings still did not allege specific facts showing Commissioner Banks’s personal involvement or a City policy, practice, or custom. The court stated that the decision did not prevent Madison from bringing a different action against specific individuals, provided that such an action included specific facts about the alleged violations and each defendant’s conduct.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal claims, declined to exercise jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and denied Madison’s motion for leave to amend. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Madison the ability to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal.