Marchant v. De Blasio

Background

The plaintiffs were African-American voters who said they lived in the Bronx district previously represented by Andy King. They sought injunctive and monetary relief based on King’s expulsion from the New York City Council. The complaint alleged that the expulsion was politically biased and based on minor workplace behavior or disciplinary matters, but it provided few details about what happened.

King was expelled on October 5, 2020, after the City Council voted 48-2 to remove him. Mayor Bill de Blasio then called a special election to fill the vacancy. The plaintiffs filed this case on December 14, 2020, seeking to stop that election. The court denied their request for a preliminary injunction on December 18, 2020. The defendants later moved to dismiss the complaint.

Dismissal Motion and Abandonment

The defendants did not identify specific provisions of Rule 12(b), so the court treated the motion as invoking both Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

The court first held that the plaintiffs had abandoned their claims by failing to meaningfully oppose the motion. Their response was filed after the deadline, was not filed electronically even though their counsel was required to file electronically, and did not address the defendants’ arguments. The court nevertheless considered the response rather than treating the motion as unopposed. The court also noted that an unopposed motion to dismiss still must be meritorious.

Federal Claims

The plaintiffs relied on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of rights protected elsewhere; it does not itself create a separate constitutional right.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims because the complaint did not identify specific actions by any defendant or provide facts from which the court could infer that the defendants violated the voters’ constitutional rights by removing King. The court stated that, after disregarding conclusory statements, no factual allegations remained that could support a constitutional claim.

The court separately ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert claims on King’s behalf. Standing requires a plaintiff to show a concrete injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a favorable ruling could remedy. A person generally may not assert someone else’s legal rights. The court found that the plaintiffs had not identified a legally protected interest or concrete injury of their own, and that King could assert his own rights in a separate action.

The court also observed that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 does not create an independent claim for relief. In a footnote, the court stated that even if the plaintiffs had provided more facts, it was not clear what constitutional provision would give voters a right to keep their preferred representative in office, assuming the City Council had an adequate basis for the expulsion. That observation was not the primary basis for the dismissal.

State-Law Claims

The complaint also appeared to challenge the expulsion under Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules, a state procedure used to seek judicial review of certain government actions. After dismissing the federal claims, and finding no diversity jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It therefore dismissed those claims as well.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the case. It directed the clerk to terminate all open motions and close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.