Gonzalez v. New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-06822
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gonzalez v. New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai, Judge Stanton dismissed Gonzalez’s amended discrimination complaint for failing to state a claim.
Dominic Gonzalez’s action against New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court declined to allow another amendment.
What happened
Gonzalez v. New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai concerned a complaint alleging violations of federal employment and education discrimination laws. The court had previously dismissed the Title VII and Title IX claims and allowed Gonzalez to amend to support a possible disability-discrimination claim.
Gonzalez’s amended complaint did not provide facts showing that the defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act or another antidiscrimination law. It described his disability as “open minded” and “wc” and described his race as “handsome” in connection with a claim under another federal statute.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and declined to allow another amendment because Gonzalez had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint’s defects.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai · No. 1:20-cv-06822
- Louis Stanton
- Feb. 4, 2021
Background
Dominic Gonzalez filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
In an earlier order dated September 17, 2020, the court dismissed the Title VII and Title IX claims, interpreted the complaint as possibly raising claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and allowed Gonzalez to file an amended complaint stating facts supporting an ADA claim. Gonzalez filed the amended complaint on October 15, 2020.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the amended complaint under the screening rules that require dismissal of a complaint filed without a filing fee if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacks authority to decide it. The court said that it must read a complaint filed without a lawyer generously and consider the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.
The court concluded that the amended complaint did not state facts suggesting that the defendant violated the ADA or another antidiscrimination statute. Gonzalez relied on allegations from his original complaint, which the court had already found insufficient. To the extent the amended complaint added facts supporting a possible ADA claim, it described his disability as “open minded” and “wc.” Gonzalez also asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and described his race as “handsome.” The court characterized these added assertions as frivolous.
Disposition
The court dismissed the claims against the defendant for failure to state a claim. It declined to give Gonzalez another opportunity to amend because he had already been allowed to amend and the defects could not be cured by further amendment. The conclusion states that the action was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(11), as written in the opinion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.