Norman v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-05560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Norman v. City of New York, Judge Broderick dismissed claims against three state officials and denied Norman’s requests to submit more evidence.
Shomari E. Norman’s claims against Letitia James, Letizia Tagliafierro, and Josh Stein were dismissed with prejudice. His requests to submit additional evidence were denied without prejudice. The opinion did not resolve the claims against the City of New York, Leith Chrysler Jeep, or Dermot Shea.
What happened
Norman v. City of New York concerned Shomari E. Norman’s allegations that his vehicle was seized, repossessed, and sold, and that credit reports wrongly stated he missed payments. He sued several defendants, including three state officials.
The three officials argued that they could not be sued in federal court in their official capacities and that Norman did not allege their personal involvement. Norman also asked to submit additional evidence, including audio and video related to the vehicle tow.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick dismissed Norman’s claims against Letitia James, Letizia Tagliafierro, and Josh Stein with prejudice, and declined to hear the remaining state-law claims against them. The judge denied Norman’s evidence requests without prejudice, allowing him to refile them later in the litigation.
The detailed version
- Norman v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-05560
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 20, 2020
Background
Shomari E. Norman, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York, Leith Chrysler Jeep, Attorney General Letitia James, Inspector General Letizia Tagliafierro, Attorney General Josh Stein, and New York City Police Department Commissioner Dermot Shea. He alleged that a yellow parking boot was placed on his 2015 Jeep Patriot, that police officers ordered him to release the vehicle to a towing company, and that the vehicle was later recovered and sold. He also alleged that Chrysler Capital made a false report to credit-reporting agencies about a missed vehicle payment.
Norman listed several claimed violations, including constitutional-rights and civil-rights theories, credit-related wrongdoing, conspiracy, and other statutory violations. He sought monetary damages and asked the court to have the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigate the matter. The opinion addressed motions to dismiss filed by James, Tagliafierro, and Stein, together called the State Defendants. The City and Commissioner Shea had answered the amended complaint; the opinion did not decide claims against them or against Leith Chrysler Jeep.
Requests to Submit Evidence
Norman asked to submit additional evidence through two motions and a later letter, including materials concerning the vehicle tow, credit reporting, and an audio or video recording. The court noted that much of the proposed material was already attached to the complaint and that the submissions would not affect its decision on the State Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court denied the requests to submit additional evidence without prejudice to refile at a later stage of the litigation.
Motions to Dismiss
The State Defendants moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning its legal power to hear a case. Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
The court held that state immunity barred Norman’s claims against James, Tagliafierro, and Stein in their official capacities. The court found that the state had not clearly agreed to be sued under the circumstances presented. The court also said that, to the extent Norman’s pleadings could be read as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, those claims failed because Norman did not allege facts showing that any of the three officials personally participated in violating his constitutional rights. Apart from naming them in the caption, Norman did not mention them in the complaint or amended complaint or allege that they had authority over the NYPD’s parking-ticket enforcement or the repossession and sale of vehicles.
The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, after the federal claims against the State Defendants were eliminated.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered that Norman’s claims against Letitia James, Letizia Tagliafierro, and Josh Stein be dismissed with prejudice. The court directed the clerk to terminate those three defendants and the motions addressed in the opinion. Norman’s requests to submit additional evidence were denied without prejudice to refile at a later date.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.