Jones Bey v. La Casse

Background

Sister E. Jones Bey proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. She first sued the City of New York, Dana La Casse, and Vicknell Powell. After the court directed her to amend the complaint, she filed an amended complaint naming additional defendants, including the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), ACS employees, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), NYPD officers, the State of New York, family-court officials, the Powells, and William and Shanta Pierce.

The amended complaint alleged disputes involving two New York Family Courts, including custody proceedings concerning P.J.Z-B. Jones Bey alleged that the Pierces improperly restricted her access to the child and gave false information to a family court. She also alleged that the Powells stole mail and packages, opened an electricity account in her name, arranged for people to enter or harass her, made reports to child-protection authorities, and that Vicknell Powell threatened her with a knife.

Jones Bey alleged that police officers entered her home on July 30, 2020, after receiving a 911 report that her three younger children were unsupervised and injured or needed help. She also alleged that Officer Canales did not act after she reported Powell’s knife threat. She alleged that ACS employees sought and obtained a court order permitting entry into her home. She sought various forms of relief, including changes to the family-court proceedings, orders concerning ACS, damages, and housing-related relief.

Court’s analysis

The court held that it could not intervene in or take over the ongoing child-custody proceedings. Under the domestic-relations abstention doctrine, a federal district court generally must refrain from deciding family-law matters that can be fully and fairly decided in state court. The court also explained that it could not use its federal jurisdiction to overturn or replace the state family courts’ decisions.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the Pierces and Powells because the amended complaint did not show that these private individuals acted under state law. It also dismissed the claims against ACS and the NYPD because those city agencies were not entities that could be sued. The claims against New York City were dismissed because the amended complaint did not allege that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violations.

The court concluded that the allegations against the ACS employees did not show an unlawful home entry because Jones Bey alleged that the entry occurred under a family-court order. The court said that any disagreement with a final family-court decision should be raised through the state appellate process rather than through a federal civil-rights action. The court allowed Jones Bey to replead claims against the police officers concerning the July 30, 2020 incident, but held that the allegation that Officer Canales failed to investigate the knife threat did not state a claim because there is generally no constitutional right to a police investigation.

The claims against New York State were dismissed because the State’s immunity under the Eleventh Amendment barred the suit. The claims for damages against Family Court Referee Andrea Amoa, Judge Paul Hensley, and Judge Ronna Gordon-Galchus were dismissed because judges and functionally comparable referees have absolute immunity for actions taken in their judicial roles. Any claims Jones Bey sought to bring on behalf of her children were dismissed without prejudice because a person representing herself generally cannot litigate claims belonging to her minor children without a lawyer.

The court also held that the amended complaint did not state a Fair Housing Act claim against Vicknell Powell. Although Jones Bey alleged discrimination based on nationality, family size, religion, and source of income, she did not provide facts connecting Powell’s conduct to a characteristic protected by that law. The court granted leave to replead a housing-discrimination claim against Powell.

Finally, the court held that the federal criminal statute concerning hostage taking did not give Jones Bey a private civil claim. A private person cannot prosecute or enforce a federal criminal law through a civil lawsuit.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under the federal screening statute for failure to state a claim and because some defendants were immune from suit. The court granted leave to file a second amended complaint asserting a Section 1983 claim against the police officers arising from their July 30, 2020 arrival at her home and a Fair Housing Act claim against Powell. The second amended complaint had to be filed with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days of the order, using the specified case number and title. No summons would issue at that time. Judge Louis L. Stanton warned that failure to meet the deadline without good cause would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim and on immunity grounds.