Donmez v. NYC Department of Consumer Affairs

Background

Ibrahim Donmez, appearing without a lawyer, submitted 2,135 pages. The submission included a notice seeking to move a proceeding concerning his 2016 traffic violations from Midtown Community Court to the federal district court and a new complaint asserting constitutional claims based on those violations and later interactions with New York government actors.

The named defendants included New York City, New York State, departments of both governments, several individual government employees, Judge Charlotte Davidson, and NYC Deputy Counsel Sanford Cohen. The court had previously allowed Donmez to proceed without paying filing fees.

The opinion also discussed Donmez’s earlier federal lawsuit, filed in 2016. In that earlier round of the case, the court rejected claims brought on behalf of other pedicab drivers, found the attempted removal improper, dismissed due-process claims concerning suspension of his pedicab license for failure to state a claim, and declined to intervene in the state-court matter.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing a person to seek relief for violations of federal rights by someone acting under state authority.

Notice of removal. The court said the state-court proceeding appeared to be closed because the last event described occurred on June 16, 2017. If the proceeding was closed, the federal court would lack authority over it and would remand it to Midtown Community Court. Rather than immediately doing so, the court granted Donmez 30 days to amend the removal notice to provide facts showing that the proceeding was still pending. The amended notice had to contain a short and plain statement of no more than 10 pages and copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served on Donmez in the state-court proceeding.

New York City departments. The court held that the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, the New York City Police Department, and the New York City Office of Administrative Trials & Hearings could not be sued in their own names. It therefore dismissed them from the action for failure to state a claim.

State defendants. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred the § 1983 claims against New York State and the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. It dismissed the claims against those defendants.

Judge Davidson. The court held that Judge Davidson’s alleged conduct arose from rulings and actions taken while she presided over Donmez’s Midtown Community Court proceedings. Because those actions were within her judicial role and jurisdiction, the court dismissed the claims against her under judicial immunity and treated them as frivolous for purposes of the fee-screening statute.

Deputy Counsel Cohen. The court held that the claims against Sanford Cohen concerned actions within his official duties as a government lawyer and were closely connected to litigation. It therefore dismissed those claims because they sought money from a defendant immune from that type of suit.

Claims based on the 2016 violations. The court applied claim preclusion, also called res judicata, which generally prevents a party from bringing claims that were already decided or could have been brought in an earlier case involving the same opposing party. The court held that Donmez could not relitigate claims arising from his 2016 violations or bring new claims arising from those violations if they occurred on or before August 15, 2016.

Amended complaint. The court found that the 2,135-page submission did not provide the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It nevertheless granted Donmez 30 days to file an amended complaint limited to 20 pages. The amended complaint could include claims arising after August 15, 2016, but could not include claims disposed of by this order. It would completely replace the original complaint.

Request for counsel. The court denied Donmez’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later stage because it was too early to assess the merits of the action.

Disposition

The court dismissed from the action the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, the New York City Police Department, the New York City Office of Administrative Trials & Hearings, the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, the City of New York, the State of New York, Judge Charlotte Davidson, and NYC Deputy Counsel Sanford Cohen under the federal fee-screening statute.

The court granted leave to file an amended notice of removal and granted leave to file an amended complaint. The amended notice had to be limited to 10 pages, and the amended complaint had to be limited to 20 pages and submitted within 30 days. The court denied the application for appointed counsel without prejudice to renewal. It stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed time, without good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.