Bronx Miracle Gospel Tabernacle Word of Faith Ministries, Inc. v. Piazza

Background

The individual plaintiffs—Keith Elijah Thompson, Yvonne Mae Thompson, Jeannette Y. Brown, and Bernel Arthur Richardson—sued Deborah J. Piazza, a trustee appointed by a bankruptcy court in a Chapter 11 proceeding, and Piazza’s attorneys, Scott S. Markowitz and Jill Makower. The complaint sought money damages and described events involving Bronx Miracle Gospel Tabernacle (BMGT), including changed locks, removal and retention of computers, the sale of church property, and the loss of access to sacred items used in worship.

The individual plaintiffs asserted claims under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, claims concerning fees and statements that allegedly harmed Reverend Keith Elijah Thompson’s reputation, state-law fraud claims concerning the property sale, and a claim that the trustee failed to protect the church’s interests. The complaint also attempted to assert claims on behalf of BMGT and other BMGT members.

Claims on behalf of BMGT and BMGT members

The court held that the individual plaintiffs, as nonlawyers, could represent only their own interests. They could not represent BMGT or other church members. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice any claims brought on behalf of BMGT and BMGT members.

Claims against Deborah Piazza

The court concluded that the complaint suggested the individual plaintiffs were trying to bring BMGT’s claims against Piazza. Because the alleged duty would be owed to BMGT, not the individual plaintiffs, the court dismissed all claims against Piazza without prejudice. The court also noted that, under the rule requiring permission from the bankruptcy court that appointed a trustee before suing the trustee elsewhere, BMGT would need such permission; the complaint did not indicate that BMGT had obtained it.

Claims against Markowitz and Makower

The court treated the alleged First Amendment violations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits damages claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. The court explained that private parties generally are not liable under that statute. Because Markowitz and Makower were private parties who did not work for a state or other government body, the court held that the individual plaintiffs failed to state a claim against them and dismissed all claims brought against them.

Amendment and state-law claims

Although courts generally give an unrepresented plaintiff a chance to amend a defective complaint, the court found that amendment would be futile and declined to grant the individual plaintiffs leave to amend. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims the individual plaintiffs might be asserting.

Disposition

The court dismissed without prejudice (1) all claims brought on behalf of BMGT and BMGT members and (2) all claims against Piazza. It dismissed all claims brought by the individual plaintiffs against Markowitz and Makower for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.