Richards v. City of New York Comptroller

Background

Alroy Richards, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He alleged that the New York City Police Department failed to arrest a person who physically attacked him, retaliated after he complained to police, surveilled and followed him, intercepted his communications, racially profiled him, and issued him multiple traffic tickets and moving violations. He alleged that these events temporarily caused his driver’s license to be suspended. He also claimed that an unspecified employer at a City agency terminated him after he called police about the attack.

Because Richards sued only the City and not individual officials, the court treated his constitutional claims as claims of municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the rule from Monell v. Department of Social Services. The City moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Constitutional and municipal-liability claims

The court held that Richards did not plausibly allege that a City policy or customary practice caused a violation of his constitutional rights. A municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because it employs someone who allegedly violated a person’s rights. The complaint had to identify a City policy or practice that caused the violation, but the court found that Richards had not done so.

The court also explained why the alleged underlying constitutional violations were insufficient. The traffic tickets and loss of driving privileges did not support a malicious-prosecution claim because the sanctions were civil, not criminal. Richards’s retaliation theory failed because he did not plausibly connect his complaints to police officials with the later stops and tickets; the complaint itself gave lawful explanations for the traffic encounters. His racial-profiling and equal-protection allegations also failed because he did not allege facts suggesting discriminatory motivation or different treatment of a similarly situated non-minority group.

Title VII claims

The court held that Richards failed to state a workplace-discrimination or retaliation claim under Title VII. He did not allege that his employer took a discriminatory employment action. Although he alleged that he was terminated after calling police about an attack, he did not allege that he had complained about workplace discrimination or otherwise engaged in activity protected by Title VII. The court therefore found no adequately pleaded basis for either discrimination or retaliation.

State-law claims and amendment

Richards also appeared to assert state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, retaliation, libel, and negligence. After rejecting the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state-law claims.

The court stated that a self-represented litigant should generally receive an opportunity to amend when the complaint might be capable of stating a valid claim. It therefore granted the City’s motion to dismiss Richards’s first amended complaint without prejudice to amendment. Richards could file another amended complaint by September 8, 2021. The order stated that failure to meet that deadline would result in dismissal of the case with prejudice.