Grazette v. Rockefeller

Background

David I. Grazette, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows people to sue state or local officials for certain constitutional-rights violations. He had permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The operative pleading was his amended complaint, which Judge Nathan reviewed under the screening requirements for fee-waived cases.

The court explained that it had to dismiss any part of the complaint that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, those filings still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.

Claims Against New York State

The court dismissed Grazette’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court stated that New York had not waived this immunity and that Congress had not removed it when it enacted § 1983.

Claims Against the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission

The court dismissed any claims against the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission as redundant of the claims against the City of New York. It explained that a New York City agency generally is not an entity that can be sued separately from the City.

Claims Against Tara Mullen, Anna Chin, and “Anthony”

The court dismissed Grazette’s claims against Tara Mullen, Anna Chin, and “Anthony” for failure to state a claim. It found that he did not allege facts showing how any of these defendants were personally involved in the events underlying his claims. The court also explained that a person cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because that person employs or supervises someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Service on Remaining Defendants

Because Grazette had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the required service forms and summonses and provide the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on the City of New York, Robert Muller, Emily Menand, Sharon Hird, Smita Agarkar, Emilee Anne Nawa, Matthew Levin, and the New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System.

The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summonses are issued. It stated that Grazette should request an extension if the amended complaint is not served within that period. The order also required Grazette to notify the court in writing if his address changes.

Identifying Unnamed Defendants

The court ordered the New York City Law Department to identify the seven unnamed New York City police officers whom Grazette alleged were involved in events at 30 Rockefeller Center on September 25, 2019. Within 60 days, the Law Department had to provide their identities, badge numbers, and service addresses to Grazette and the court.

Grazette then had 30 days after receiving that information to file a second amended complaint naming those officers. The second amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the existing amended complaint, and the court would screen it before deciding whether to arrange service.

The court declined to order the identification of the unnamed ambulance drivers at that time because Grazette had not alleged facts suggesting that those defendants were personally involved in a violation of his rights.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims against the State of New York as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. It dismissed the claims against the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission, Tara Mullen, Anna Chin, and “Anthony” for failure to state a claim. It directed service on the remaining named defendants, ordered the Law Department to identify the seven unnamed police officers, and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.