Vidarte v. Burgos

Background

Veronica Vidarte, appearing without a lawyer, sued Jaime Burgos and invoked federal-question jurisdiction. She brought the action for herself and her minor child. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.

Vidarte alleged that her domestic partner or spouse, Hector Burgos, died from an accidental overdose on September 21, 2020. Jaime Burgos was Hector’s brother and a Staff Sergeant in the New York Army National Guard. Vidarte alleged that Jaime initially supported her and her child but later threatened and intimidated them, interfered with their Catholic funeral and memorial-service practices, threatened violence if she held a wake, and refused for a period to return Hector’s remains. She also alleged that Jaime reported her to Child Protective Services, created a fundraising page without her consent, publicly blamed her for Hector’s death, and made racial slurs and hateful comments.

Vidarte identified alleged violations involving religion, national origin, race, psychological condition, threats, intimidation, deprivation of rights under color of law, and harassment. The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims against a person who violates federal rights while acting under authority of state law.

Claims on behalf of the minor child

The court ruled that Vidarte could not represent her minor child in federal court because she had not alleged that she was a lawyer. A person representing herself generally may litigate only her own interests, and a nonlawyer parent generally may not bring a child’s federal claims without counsel. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice any claims Vidarte asserted on behalf of her minor child.

Vidarte’s Section 1983 claims

To state a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action taken under color of state law. The court explained that merely holding a state position does not automatically make a person’s conduct state action. The relevant question is whether the person used authority provided by state law, considering the nature of the conduct and its connection to official duties.

The court found that Vidarte had not alleged facts showing that Jaime acted under color of state law. Although Jaime was an officer in the New York Army National Guard, the court characterized the alleged conduct as personal conduct arising from a dispute involving his brother’s domestic partner or spouse and his brother’s daughter. The court therefore held that Vidarte had not stated a viable Section 1983 claim and dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim for relief under the federal fee-waiver screening statute.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied leave to amend because it determined that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment. It dismissed the action, dismissing the minor child’s claims without prejudice and dismissing Vidarte’s Section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. A footnote stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to any state-law claims Vidarte might pursue against Jaime in state court.