McIver v. Yonkers City
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-06061
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In McIver v. Yonkers City, Judge Stanton dismissed an unrepresented plaintiff’s civil-rights complaint because it did not state viable federal claims.
Tamicko Murray McIver’s claims against the City of Yonkers, the Yonkers Police Department, the Yonkers Mayor’s Office, and Justin Kurby were dismissed; the court also declined to allow amendment.
What happened
In McIver v. Yonkers City, Tamicko Murray McIver alleged that Justin Kurby assaulted her and her daughter at a cookout and took their belongings. She also alleged that the belongings remained in Kurby’s car after it was impounded and that Yonkers officials did not adequately help her obtain a police report or recover the property.
The court treated the complaint as raising civil-rights claims against the City of Yonkers, the Yonkers Police Department, the Yonkers Mayor’s Office, and Kurby. It concluded that the police department and mayor’s office could not be sued as separate city agencies, that McIver did not allege a city policy or practice causing a constitutional violation, and that Kurby was a private person not acting for the government. The court also concluded that New York provided remedies for the alleged property loss, defeating her due-process claim, and found no basis for diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the complaint under the statute governing screening of complaints filed without paying filing fees. The court declined to allow an amended complaint because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment.
The detailed version
- McIver v. Yonkers City · No. 1:20-cv-06061
- Louis Stanton
- Sept. 30, 2020
Background
Tamicko Murray McIver filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. She alleged that, at a cookout in Yonkers, New York, Justin Kurby pushed her aside and struck her while she tried to help her adult daughter. She further alleged that Kurby took her and her daughter’s belongings, including cellphones, put them in his car, and later crashed the car. The complaint also alleged that the car was in police impound and that Yonkers officials did not help her obtain a police report or recover the property.
The complaint form invoked federal-question and diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. The court construed the pleading as asserting claims against the City of Yonkers, the Yonkers Police Department, the Yonkers Mayor’s Office, and Justin Kurby under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits claims for violations of federal rights by people acting for the government. The court also liberally construed the property allegations as asserting a procedural due-process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Legal standard
Because McIver was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or part of it, if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers liberally, those complaints still must include enough facts to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.
Claims against the Yonkers Police Department and Mayor’s Office
The court dismissed the claims against the Yonkers Police Department and Yonkers Mayor’s Office for failure to state a claim. Applying New York law, it concluded that city agencies and administrative departments do not have a separate legal identity that allows them to be sued independently from the municipality.
Claims against the City of Yonkers
The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against the City of Yonkers. A municipality is not liable under § 1983 merely because one of its employees or agents allegedly acted improperly. The complaint must allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused the constitutional violation. The court found that McIver alleged no facts suggesting that a Yonkers policy, custom, or practice caused the claimed harm.
Claims against Justin Kurby
The court dismissed the § 1983 claim against Kurby. Section 1983 generally applies only to conduct taken under color of state law, meaning conduct carried out through government authority or involvement. The court found that Kurby was a private person who did not work for any state or other government body.
Property and due-process claim
The court dismissed the due-process claim based on McIver’s inability to retrieve property from Kurby’s impounded car. When an alleged property loss results from a random and unauthorized act, due process is ordinarily satisfied if the state provides a meaningful remedy afterward. The court concluded that New York law provided adequate remedies for the alleged property loss, including possible claims based on negligence, recovery of property, or wrongful control of property. It therefore held that McIver could not maintain a federal procedural-due-process claim, even if she had not used those state remedies.
Diversity jurisdiction
The court also addressed McIver’s reference to diversity jurisdiction. It stated that diversity jurisdiction requires opposing parties to be citizens of different states and requires the claim to exceed $75,000. The court found that McIver had indicated that she and each listed defendant resided in New York, which defeated complete diversity. The opinion does not state that the court dismissed the complaint in a separate disposition specifically labeled for lack of diversity jurisdiction; it discusses the deficiency as part of its jurisdictional analysis.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and declined to grant leave to amend because it found that amendment could not cure the defects. The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail McIver a copy of the order and note service on the docket. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.