Jallow v. Department of Social Sevices of the City of New York

Background

Yaya Jallow, representing himself, sued the City of New York and Bowery Residents’ Committee. He described alleged theft, slander, harassment, intimidation, retaliation, attempted and actual false imprisonment, and theft or destruction of personal property during a four-month stay at BRC Reaching New Heights Men’s Shelter. He sought money damages and prosecution of alleged criminal violations. The complaint also mentioned New York City agencies, but the caption named the City and Bowery Residents’ Committee as defendants.

The court had previously allowed Jallow to proceed without paying filing fees. Because he was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint must still provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible and must comply with the requirement for a short and plain statement of the facts.

Section 1983 claims

Jallow invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a civil claim for violation of federal rights by a person acting under state law.

As to the City, the court held that Jallow had not alleged facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his constitutional rights. The court granted him permission to provide additional facts supporting municipal liability. The court also stated that there is no federal or New York State property right to placement in a particular type of shelter, so an allegation that Jallow was sent to an undesirable shelter did not state a due-process claim.

As to Bowery Residents’ Committee, the court treated it as a private entity. A private entity may be treated as acting under state law in certain circumstances, such as when the government coerces or controls its conduct, the entity jointly participates with the government, or the government delegates a public function to it. The court found that Jallow had not alleged facts showing that Bowery Residents’ Committee’s actions were attributable to the government. It allowed him to assert additional supporting facts in an amended complaint if such facts existed.

Criminal-statute claims

Jallow also relied on federal criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 249, 1505, and 1038, as well as state and local criminal statutes. The court held that these criminal provisions do not create a private right to sue. Accordingly, it dismissed those claims without prejudice.

State-law claims

Jallow asserted negligence, harassment, and slander claims under state law. The court explained that a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims within its original jurisdiction. It stated that if Jallow failed to state a federal claim in his amended complaint, the state-law claims would be dismissed without prejudice so that he could pursue them in an appropriate state court.

Disposition

The court granted Jallow leave to file a third amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to clearly identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe the injuries, and state the relief sought. It would replace the earlier complaints rather than supplement them, so Jallow had to repeat any facts or claims he wanted the court to consider. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that failure to amend within the allowed period, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.