Greene v. Sampson
- Philip Halpern
- 7:18-cv-06103
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Greene v. Sampson, Judge Halpern dismissed with prejudice Greene’s claims against four moving defendants.
Kivia C. Greene’s claims against moving defendants Nicholas D’Alessandro, Matthew Orsino, Jose Carrion, and Marcus Molinaro were dismissed with prejudice. Diane and Sean Sampson were not among the defendants whose motions were decided in this order.
What happened
In Greene v. Sampson, Kivia C. Greene, representing herself, claimed that neighbors harassed her and that several local officials and a school-district superintendent failed to help her. She brought claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a federal civil-rights statute.
The court found that Greene did not identify a valid claim under any part of the Civil Rights Act. It also found that she did not identify a constitutional right that was violated, explain what the individual defendants personally did, or allege that a government policy caused the violation. The court also said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not create a federal claim for relief.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the four defendants’ motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses complaints that do not state a legally sufficient claim, and dismissed Greene’s claims against those defendants with prejudice. The court directed the clerk to remove Nicholas D’Alessandro, Matthew Orsino, Jose Carrion, and Marcus Molinaro as defendants; the opinion does not state a disposition of the claims against Diane and Sean Sampson.
The detailed version
- Greene v. Sampson · No. 7:18-cv-06103
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 2, 2021
Background
Kivia C. Greene proceeded without a lawyer and sued Diane and Sean Sampson and other defendants. She alleged that the Sampsons, her next-door neighbors, had harassed her from September 2, 2011, through June 5, 2018. Her allegations included dogs entering her property, music being played for an extended period, children shooting BB guns into her home’s siding, and a noose being hung from a tree outside her window. She also alleged that she repeatedly contacted the East Fishkill Police Department but was dissatisfied with its response.
Greene alleged that she sought help from the Wappingers Falls Central School District, the East Fishkill Town Supervisor, the Dutchess County Executive, and the Dutchess County Human Rights Commission. She asserted that a pattern of racism had been established. Her amended complaint invoked the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She sought a refund of school and property taxes paid over ten years and $10 million in punitive damages.
The opinion addressed motions to dismiss filed by Nicholas D’Alessandro, Matthew Orsino, Jose Carrion, and Marcus Molinaro. Each motion was brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a claim on which relief can legally be granted. The court had previously given Greene another opportunity to amend her complaint, but she did not file another amended pleading.
Court’s analysis
The court first considered Greene’s claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Greene did not identify which of the Act’s eleven titles she intended to invoke. Even reading her self-represented complaint generously, the court found no facts supporting a viable claim under any title. The court also explained that individual liability is generally unavailable under the titles potentially relevant to her allegations. The court specifically noted that Greene did not allege the facts needed for a claim under Title VI, which concerns discrimination in federally funded programs, or Title VII, which concerns employment discrimination.
The court next considered 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute provides a way to seek relief for violations of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law; it does not itself create a separate constitutional right. The court stated that a § 1983 claim requires allegations that a protected right was violated by a state actor and that the defendant was personally involved in the violation.
The court found that Greene did not identify the constitutional violations she was asserting. She also did not allege what any of the individual defendants personally did or failed to do that violated her rights, or that a policy or custom of East Fishkill or Wappingers Falls caused a violation. The court further noted that the government generally has no constitutional duty to protect a person from harm caused by private individuals, and that a person has no constitutional right to have a complaint investigated or another person prosecuted.
Greene also asked in her opposition to replace the § 1983 claim with a claim under the “Human Rights Law 1948.” The court treated this as a possible reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but declined to treat the opposition as an amendment. It stated that, in any event, the Declaration is a nonbinding resolution and does not create federal claims for relief.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the four moving defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. The court dismissed Greene’s claims against those defendants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and § 1983, and dismissed the claims alleged against the moving defendants with prejudice because the court found that amendment would be futile. The clerk was directed to terminate Nicholas D’Alessandro, Matthew Orsino, Jose Carrion, and Marcus Molinaro as defendants and to terminate their pending motions. The opinion states that Diane and Sean Sampson had filed an answer instead of joining these motions, but it does not state the final disposition of the claims against them.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.