Stevenson v. De Blasio
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-05065
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
Stevenson v. De Blasio: Judge Torres dismissed declaratory and injunctive claims for lack of jurisdiction but ordered service of the complaint.
Eric Stevenson’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were dismissed; the court directed service of the complaint on the named defendants.
What happened
In Stevenson v. De Blasio, Eric Stevenson, representing himself, sued New York City officials and entities under a civil-rights law and the Voting Rights Act. He sought court declarations, an order affecting his candidacy and ballot placement, and damages.
The court dismissed the requests for declarations and injunctions because they asked the federal court to review and undo a New York state court’s decision removing Stevenson’s name from the primary-election ballot. The court also directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the complaint and summonses on the defendants.
Judge Analisa Torres ruled that the dismissed claims were barred by a jurisdictional rule called Rooker-Feldman and denied fee-free status for any appeal. The order did not dismiss the claims for damages and directed service on the defendants.
The detailed version
- Stevenson v. De Blasio · No. 1:21-cv-05065
- Analisa Torres
- June 21, 2021
Background
Eric Stevenson appeared without a lawyer and brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Voting Rights Act against Mayor Bill De Blasio, the Speaker of the New York City Council, the New York City Council, and the Commissioner of the New York City Board of Elections. Stevenson sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages.
The court had already allowed Stevenson to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion states that a New York state court had invalidated Stevenson’s primary candidacy for a New York City Council seat and ordered his name removed from the primary-election ballot. That decision was affirmed, and further review was denied, according to the opinion.
Declaratory and injunctive relief
The court dismissed Stevenson’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents a federal district court from acting as an appeals court over a state-court judgment. The court concluded that Stevenson had not shown why his requests to revalidate his candidacy and return his name to the ballot were not barred by that doctrine. The court relied on the reasons in an earlier order by Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain and cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), which requires dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
The opinion describes the dismissal as applying to the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. It does not state that the damages claims were dismissed.
Service and other directions
Because Stevenson was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete service forms, and send the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses were issued. Stevenson was required to notify the court in writing of any address change.
Disposition
The court dismissed Stevenson’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. It also directed the Clerk of Court to arrange service of the summonses and complaint on the four defendants. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Analisa Torres signed the order on June 21, 2021.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.