Jallow v. The City of New York

Background

Yaya Jallow, representing himself, sued the City of New York. He invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and sought money damages. He alleged that New York City Police Department officers falsely arrested and detained him on two occasions.

Jallow alleged that on August 21, 2020, after an encounter with a Chipotle employee and a physical fight, police arrested and detained him and charged him with assault. He alleged that on October 14, 2020, after another fight involving employees at a Food Bazaar supermarket, police again arrested and detained him and charged him with disorderly conduct.

Jallow also asserted discrimination based on race and color. He relied on 18 U.S.C. § 1038, 18 U.S.C. § 1201, and New York Penal Law § 135.10. The court treated his allegations about constitutional violations by the City and its police officers as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows lawsuits for certain violations of federal rights by state actors.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a self-represented plaintiff’s complaint must still provide enough facts to make a claim plausible. It concluded that Jallow had not alleged facts showing that the officers arrested him without probable cause. His allegations indicated that he fought back during the first incident and admitted being involved in a fight during the second. The court said those facts suggested that the officers had probable cause to arrest him for assault and disorderly conduct.

The court also held that the criminal statutes Jallow cited could not support a civil lawsuit because they do not provide private causes of action. It further explained that a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely because one of its employees allegedly acted wrongfully. Jallow needed to allege that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation, but he had not done so.

The court found that Jallow had not identified the individual officers who allegedly violated his rights or provided facts showing each person’s direct involvement. His discrimination allegations likewise did not state facts showing that defendants treated him differently from similarly situated people because of his race or color. The court also noted that Jallow had not alleged facts establishing diversity jurisdiction and that his stated Brooklyn residence precluded complete diversity with the City of New York.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton denied Jallow’s first motion to amend as moot because Jallow had been permitted to file that amended complaint as of right. The court denied leave to file the proposed second amended complaint because it contained unsupported discrimination allegations. In the conclusion, the court denied Jallow’s motions to amend, identified as ECF Nos. 4 and 6, for the stated reasons.

The court nevertheless granted Jallow leave to file a second amended complaint. It directed him to name the individuals involved, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, explain how his rights were violated, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. He had 60 days from the date of the order to file it. The court warned that failure to comply, without good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time.