Kilayko-Gullas v. East End Temple

Background

Cecille Kilayko-Gullas proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. In her original complaint, she alleged that East End Temple, described by the court as a private Jewish religious institution, violated her federal constitutional rights. The court treated those allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting for the government. On August 20, 2020, the court dismissed the original action for failure to state a claim but allowed Plaintiff to amend.

The court specifically allowed Plaintiff to name the security guard who had prevented her from entering the Temple, allege facts showing that the guard acted for the government, and allege facts sufficient to state a § 1983 claim. Plaintiff requested and received more time to amend. She then filed submissions that the court treated as one amended complaint. Those submissions named the Temple as the only defendant. Although Plaintiff mentioned that the Temple’s security guards were Special Police Officers under the New York City Administrative Code, she did not name any guard as a defendant.

Claims and analysis

Plaintiff alleged that a security guard prohibited her from entering the Temple to worship because she was not Jewish. She asserted that the Temple’s conduct violated her constitutional rights and was negligent. The court treated the amended complaint as asserting § 1983 claims and state-law claims.

For the § 1983 claims, the court explained that a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and action by a state actor—someone acting under state law. Private parties generally are not state actors. The court also held that the First Amendment does not give people a right to exercise their rights on private property owned by others. Because Plaintiff named only the private Temple, alleged no facts showing that it acted as a state actor, and did not allege facts showing that a Temple policy caused a constitutional violation, the court dismissed the § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

The court noted that a private security guard may sometimes be treated as a state actor when exercising certain government-granted police powers. But the court found that Plaintiff did not name a guard as a defendant and did not allege facts showing that the Temple’s policies caused a constitutional violation.

Disposition

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The conclusion states that the court dismissed the action, dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim, and declined to consider the state-law claims. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.