Berfet v. New York

Background

Terrel Berfet, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a federal-question action and had previously been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. He alleged, without additional details, that people such as police and other city officials threatened to shoot him and made offensive comments about deceased loved ones. He said the claim arose in New York on January 6, 2021, described the conduct as ongoing, and sought $2.6 million in damages.

Berfet named the State of New York in the caption. In the body of the complaint, he also referred to “police” as a defendant. The opinion does not provide further factual detail about the alleged events.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Berfet was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court also noted that a complaint must be dismissed if the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed by people without lawyers liberally, those complaints still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the complaint failed to state a claim because it did not provide facts about what happened on January 6, 2021, who participated, or where the events occurred. The court treated the allegations as possible civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Defendants and Potential Claims

The court stated that Berfet’s § 1983 claims against New York were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. It explained that states generally cannot be sued in federal court unless they waive that protection or Congress removes it, and concluded that New York had not waived its protection and Congress had not removed it for § 1983 claims.

The court also explained that the New York City Police Department was not a proper defendant because a New York City agency generally cannot be sued in the agency’s own name. Claims concerning the police department would have to be brought against the City of New York. To state a § 1983 claim against the City, however, Berfet would need to allege facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his constitutional rights.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Berfet leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. It must identify the individuals allegedly involved, or use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” if their names are unknown; describe what each defendant did or failed to do; provide dates, times, locations, injuries, and the requested relief; and include addresses for named defendants. If Berfet names the City of New York, he must allege how a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged rights violation.

The court directed the Clerk to mail the order to Berfet and note service on the docket. No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that if Berfet did not file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed period and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.