Teichmann v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Background

Boris Teichmann, appearing without a lawyer, sued the New York City Employees’ Retirement System under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute that allows claims against state actors for violating federal rights. He alleged that he applied for retroactive disability pension benefits for the period from December 18, 2008, through December 23, 2018. According to the complaint, the retirement system’s assistant general counsel either requested additional documentation or said that required documents were missing. Teichmann alleged that, after he repeatedly submitted the requested materials, the retirement system denied his application on June 11, 2018.

Teichmann alleged violations of procedural due process, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He sought the retroactive benefits and money damages. The opinion also states that Teichmann had brought several prior proceedings against the retirement system in New York State Supreme Court. In a prior related proceeding, the state courts dismissed an Article 78 case as untimely, and the appellate court affirmed that dismissal.

Due-process claim

The court explained that a procedural due-process claim requires a protected liberty or property interest and a deprivation of that interest without the process required by law. When the government acts under an established procedure, due process generally requires some form of hearing before the deprivation. When an employee’s act is random and unauthorized, an adequate state post-deprivation remedy may satisfy due process.

The court noted that courts in the Second Circuit have repeatedly held that an Article 78 proceeding generally provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy in disputes over New York City Employees’ Retirement System pension benefits, even when the internal process was inadequate or the plaintiff filed the Article 78 case late.

The court concluded that the complaint did not make clear what process Teichmann received or why his application was denied. It therefore could not determine whether the alleged deprivation resulted from an established state procedure or a random and unauthorized act. The court granted Teichmann leave to amend so he could provide additional facts supporting his due-process claim.

State-law claims

Teichmann also asserted state-law claims for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court stated that it would decide later whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—federal authority to hear related state-law claims—because it was not yet clear whether Teichmann could state a federal claim.

Request for counsel and order

Teichmann moved for appointment of pro bono counsel. The court considered the factors governing such a request, including the apparent merits of the case, efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the litigant’s ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. Because the case was at an early stage and the court could not yet assess its merits, it denied the motion for counsel without prejudice to renewal later.

The court granted Teichmann permission to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended filing had to be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, titled “Amended Complaint,” and identify docket number 21-CV-5082 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that, if Teichmann failed to comply without good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.