Madison v. Gramm

Background

Malcolm Madison, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Etta Graham, identified as the director of the Fort Washington Men’s Shelter; the New York Police Department (NYPD); and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance. Madison alleged that Graham failed to protect him from an attack at the shelter on June 1, 2021; that the NYPD targeted him; and that Vance failed to investigate the attack and other complaints. Madison alleged that the targeting was based on his race, religion, mental-health history, and criminal history. He sought money damages.

Because Madison did not identify the specific constitutional or federal statutory rights involved, the court interpreted his complaint as raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court reviewed the complaint under the screening standard for people allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. Under that standard, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Rulings on the Defendants

New York Police Department and City of New York

The court held that the NYPD, as a New York City agency, was not an entity that could be sued. Because Madison clearly intended to assert claims against New York City, the court construed the claims as being against the City of New York and directed the Clerk to replace the NYPD with the City in the caption. The court stated that this change was without prejudice to defenses the City might later assert.

The court found that Madison’s allegations against the City did not state a claim under section 1983. A municipality is not liable under that law merely because an employee allegedly acted wrongfully; the plaintiff must allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused the constitutional violation. The court gave Madison leave to amend by providing specific facts about the alleged targeting, any City policy or custom that caused it, and the harm he suffered.

The court also allowed Madison to add claims against individual NYPD officers, but required him to describe each officer’s conduct and how it harmed him. A government official cannot be held liable under section 1983 solely because that person supervised someone else.

Cyrus Vance

The court dismissed all claims against Vance for failure to state a claim. It explained that a person cannot require a prosecutor to begin a criminal case or make a prosecutor investigate or prosecute another person. The court also stated that claims against Vance were barred by prosecutorial immunity, which generally protects prosecutors from damages claims based on their prosecutorial functions.

Shelter-related claims

The court concluded that Madison had not stated a section 1983 claim against Graham or the shelter. The Fort Washington Men’s Shelter was described as being run by Project Renewal, a private nonprofit organization, although it was under contract with New York City’s Department of Homeless Services. The court explained that private conduct is treated as government conduct only in certain circumstances, such as when the private entity is controlled by the government, jointly acts with the government, or performs a function delegated by the government. Madison did not allege facts showing that Graham’s conduct was attributable to New York City.

The court also interpreted Madison’s allegations as raising discrimination claims against the shelter under the Fair Housing Act, section 1981, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court did not find the existing allegations sufficient. It granted leave to assert a Fair Housing Act claim by alleging facts showing discrimination based on race or disability, or interference, intimidation, coercion, or threats connected to those rights. It granted leave to amend a section 1981 claim by alleging racial discrimination involving the creation or enforcement of a contract. It also granted leave to assert a Title III disability-discrimination claim by alleging that the shelter discriminated against him because of his history of mental illness.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Madison 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify every defendant, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, state when and where the events occurred, describe his injuries, and identify the relief sought. The court permitted Madison to name the Fort Washington Shelter for Men and individual NYPD officers. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

If Madison failed to file a proper amended complaint within the permitted time and could not show good cause, the court stated that the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.