Morris v. Trump

Background

Keith S. Morris, a New York County resident appearing without a lawyer, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He challenged matters involving applications for Social Security and unemployment insurance benefits and the denial of his 2016 application to renew a license to operate a towing business. He alleged that state authorities denied the towing license in 2017 because he had served time and was a felon. He also alleged problems with hearings concerning benefits and asked the court to compel the release of unspecified benefits. He sought damages.

The court had previously allowed Morris to proceed without paying the filing fee. Because he was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Federal defendants and federal benefits claims

The court treated Morris’s claims against federal employees as claims under Bivens, the limited type of lawsuit that can sometimes seek damages from federal officers for constitutional violations. The court found that Morris did not allege facts showing that the federal defendants personally participated in violating his rights. It therefore treated the claims against President Donald J. Trump, William Barr, Mike Pompeo, Steven Mnuchin, Alexander Acosta, Rex Tillerson, Andrew Saul, and Roxanne Fuller as official-capacity claims. It dismissed those claims against the United States Government and those federal officials based on sovereign immunity. It also dismissed the claims against the federal officials in their personal capacities for failure to state a claim.

The court explained that 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) permits federal-court review of a final decision of the Social Security Commissioner made after a hearing. Morris did not allege that he had completed the Social Security administrative review process or received a final decision from the Commissioner. He also did not allege facts showing that any failure to complete that process should be excused. The court therefore held that his Social Security-benefits claims could not proceed at that time and granted him leave to amend by providing information about the administrative process or facts supporting an excuse for not completing it.

State and city defendants

The court dismissed Morris’s § 1983 claims against New York State’s Office of Temporary Disability Assistance and Department of Labor under the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states and state agencies from lawsuits in federal court unless an exception applies. It dismissed his personal-capacity claims against Tracie Covey and Geraldine A. Reilly because he did not allege facts showing their personal involvement. It also dismissed his official-capacity claims against Covey and Reilly based on Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Morris sued Lorelei Salas and Allison Johnson concerning the towing-license denial. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against them because Morris did not allege what either person personally did or failed to do that violated his constitutional rights. The court also stated that a claim based on the 2017 license denial appeared to be barred by New York’s three-year limitations period. If Morris included that claim in an amended complaint, the court required him to plead facts supporting equitable tolling—that is, facts showing why the filing deadline should be extended.

Order and next steps

The court granted Morris leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. For individual defendants, Morris had to allege what each person personally did or failed to do. For a Social Security claim, he had to provide the dates of the administrative law judge’s decision and the Appeals Council letter, the date he received that letter, and a copy of the letter if available. The court stated that failure to comply, absent good cause, would result in dismissal of the complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.