Jallow v. The City of New York

Background

Yaya Jallow, appearing without a lawyer, sued the City of New York; The Salvation Army of Greater New York; Grand Central Neighborhood Social Services Corp.; and Urban Pathways. He described his experiences with New York City’s shelter system and alleged that, in 2019, he was transferred to Kingsboro, which he called an under-resourced and dangerous disciplinary shelter. He alleged that the transfer was based on his national origin, race, color, and ancestry and occurred in retaliation for his complaints. He also alleged that defendants refused him a bed, stole his property, harassed him, and discriminated against him. He sought money damages.

Jallow asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows lawsuits for violations of federal rights by people acting under governmental authority. He also cited federal criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 249, 1028, 1505, and 1038.

Screening standard

Because Jallow was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court was required to screen the complaint. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that complaints filed by people without lawyers are read liberally, but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible and must satisfy the requirement of a short and plain statement of the facts supporting relief.

Section 1983 claims

The court concluded that allegations about Jallow’s transfer to an undesirable shelter did not establish a federal claim because he had no federal or New York property right to placement in a particular type of shelter.

The court also found that Jallow had not alleged facts connecting the challenged events to his race, national origin, color, or ancestry. Instead, the court said, he relied on legal conclusions and general accusations that defendants harmed him. The court granted him leave to amend by adding facts that could support an inference of race discrimination.

As to the City of New York, the court explained that a municipality cannot be held liable under section 1983 merely because one of its employees or agents allegedly acted improperly. Jallow needed to allege facts showing a City policy, custom, or practice that caused a violation of his federal constitutional rights. The court found that he had not done so and granted leave to provide additional supporting facts.

As to The Salvation Army of Greater New York, Grand Central Neighborhood Social Services Corp., and Urban Pathways, the court stated that these were private entities. A private entity’s conduct may be treated as governmental conduct in certain circumstances, such as when the entity is compelled or controlled by the government, jointly acts with the government, or performs a function delegated by the government. The court found that Jallow had not alleged facts showing that the conduct of these organizations was attributable to the government. It allowed him to include additional supporting facts in an amended complaint if such facts existed.

Federal criminal statutes

The court dismissed Jallow’s claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 249, 1028, 1505, and 1038. It held that these federal criminal statutes do not create a private right to sue, meaning an individual cannot use them as the basis for a civil lawsuit.

Order and amendment instructions

The court granted Jallow leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court directed him to identify each defendant, describe each defendant’s acts or omissions, provide relevant dates and locations, explain how his rights were violated, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Jallow failed to comply without showing good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.