Moncion v. City of NY

Background

Betty M. Moncion, representing herself and proceeding without paying filing fees, filed a complaint concerning events at the Manhattan side of the Staten Island Ferry Terminal. She alleged that, on February 17, 2019, a security guard asked to check her bookbag. After she questioned why she was being searched, another guard told her that she was not allowed to ride the ferry and had to leave or be arrested. A supervisor agreed with the two officers identified in the complaint as Turner and Yang. Moncion alleged that she experienced pain, suffering, and discrimination.

The original defendants were the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, the New York City Department of Transportation, and MSA Security. The court had previously directed Moncion to amend her complaint to address deficiencies, including that the police department and transportation department were not suable entities, that she had not alleged a city policy or practice supporting municipal liability, that it was unclear whether MSA Security’s officers acted under state authority, and that she had not provided facts supporting discrimination. After Moncion did not respond, the court dismissed the action on August 13, 2020. She filed an amended complaint on August 21, 2020.

Legal standard and analysis

The court reviewed the amended complaint under the standards applicable to complaints filed without paying filing fees. Those standards require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also was required to read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations generously, while still requiring enough facts to make a claim plausible under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court construed the amended complaint as asserting a claim under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title II prohibits covered places of public accommodation from denying people equal enjoyment of their services and facilities because of race, color, religion, or national origin. Moncion alleged that security guards searched her bag, used “racism” words, and prevented her from boarding the ferry and required her to leave. But she did not identify her race, color, religion, or national origin, and she did not identify the words the guards used. The court therefore could not determine from the allegations that the defendants discriminated against her because of a protected characteristic.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton directed the Clerk of Court to reopen the matter and granted Moncion 60 days to file a second amended complaint. The order instructed her to name the City of New York and MSA Security as defendants and to provide sufficient facts supporting a Title II claim, including her protected characteristic, the words used, and facts suggesting that she was excluded from the ferry terminal or ferry because of that characteristic. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time and that failure to file a second amended complaint would lead to judgment and closure of the matter. The order did not decide the merits of the discrimination claim.