Foster v. Muir

Background

Christopher Foster filed this pro se action against David Muir and ABC World News. After the court initially dismissed the case because Foster had not paid the required filing fee while subject to a statutory restriction on prisoner filings, Foster submitted an amended complaint and paid the filing fee. The court reopened the action and reviewed the amended complaint.

The amended complaint named “F.R.E.E. Things Matter, et al.” as the sole plaintiff, described F.R.E.E. Things Matter as an organization advocating for disability-rights advocates, and identified Foster as a board member. Foster attempted to proceed as a class action. He alleged that the defendants gave false information in a news report about who first filed a case concerning what he called the “Trump Policy.” He connected those allegations to disability discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and New York State and City human-rights laws. He sought damages and injunctive relief.

Claims on behalf of F.R.E.E. Things Matter and the proposed class

The court dismissed any claims brought on behalf of F.R.E.E. Things Matter without prejudice. It explained that an organization or other artificial entity cannot appear in federal court without a lawyer, and that a person representing himself cannot represent another person or entity. The court separately denied Foster’s request to proceed as a class action because a nonlawyer proceeding without a lawyer cannot serve as a class representative.

Foster’s individual claims

The court interpreted Foster’s references to the ADA as attempting to assert a claim under Title III, which prohibits disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of covered public accommodations. The court found that Foster did not allege facts showing that he had an ADA-defined disability. It also found that he did not allege facts showing that Muir or the network news program qualified as a public accommodation under Title III. In addition, even assuming those requirements were met, Foster did not allege facts showing that either defendant discriminated against him because of a disability or failed to accommodate a disability.

The court therefore dismissed the ADA claims Foster asserted on his own behalf for failure to state a claim. The court also noted that the amended complaint did not suggest that Foster was an employee of the defendants or that the defendants were state or local government actors.

State-law claims and requested relief

Because the court dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Foster may have been asserting. The court denied preliminary injunctive relief as moot.

Leave to amend and final disposition

The court denied Foster another opportunity to amend because it concluded that the defects in the amended complaint could not be cured by further amendment. Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered that claims brought on Foster’s behalf be dismissed for failure to state a claim, that claims brought on behalf of F.R.E.E. Things Matter be dismissed without prejudice, and that the class-action request be denied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied filing-fee assistance for purposes of an appeal.