Hines v. New York State Division of Human Rights Staff

Background

Dashon Hines, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint against unidentified staff of the Bronx office of the New York State Division of Human Rights. He alleged that a discrimination complaint he had filed against Bryant & Stratton College was placed in an early-resolution program but was later dismissed. He characterized the conduct as violating the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and requested $1 million in damages. The complaint was 268 pages long, most of which reproduced the text of that Act. The court had allowed Hines to proceed without paying filing fees.

Legal analysis

Because Hines was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint and dismiss it if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court construed the allegations as asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by a person acting under state authority.

The court held that the New York State Division of Human Rights is an arm of New York State for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. That constitutional protection generally prevents states, state agencies, and certain state officials from being sued for damages in federal court unless the state has waived its protection or Congress has removed it. The court stated that New York had not waived this protection and that Congress had not removed it for § 1983 claims. It therefore concluded that any damages claim against the agency or its staff was barred and frivolous. The court also concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It declined to allow amendment because it found that the defects could not be remedied. The court also reviewed Hines’s prior litigation history, including earlier filing restrictions described in the opinion, and ordered him to show cause within 30 days by declaration why he should not be barred from filing future actions in this court without paying fees unless he first obtained permission. That filing restriction was not imposed in this order; Hines was given an opportunity to respond before any such injunction could be entered. Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.