Foy v. The State of New York New York State Attorney General

Background

Jahn K. Foy, representing himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights. The court also read the complaint as attempting to assert employment-discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendants were The State of New York and Justice George J. Silver, identified in the complaint as the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the New York City Courts.

Foy alleged that his supervisors and court-officer union representatives misused the office of a state judge to carry out an unauthorized wrongful termination. He alleged that they planned to fire him in response to a complaint about a discriminatory act and impersonated Justice Silver. He sought a declaration that his termination was invalid and monetary relief, including compensation for malicious prosecution, illegal termination, defamation per se, and personal injury.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the complaint under the standards governing complaints filed without prepayment of fees. It explained that such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court held that the complaint did not satisfy this requirement because it provided too few facts. As to the § 1983 claims, the court held that the claims against New York were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. It stated that New York had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed that immunity through § 1983. The court therefore dismissed Foy’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York.

The court treated Foy’s allegation that he was fired after filing a discrimination complaint as an attempted First Amendment retaliation claim. Such a claim requires protected speech or conduct, an adverse action, and a connection between the two. The court found Foy’s vague allegation that supervisors planned to fire him in response to a complaint insufficient to state that claim. The complaint also gave no legal theory for claims under the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses, and the court could not identify a viable basis for those claims.

The court also treated the allegations as an attempted Title VII claim. It explained that a plaintiff must plausibly allege an adverse employment action and facts suggesting that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin motivated the decision, or that the employer retaliated against protected opposition to unlawful discrimination. The court found that Foy suggested he might have been fired in retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint, but he did not describe the circumstances of the termination or allege facts showing that the action was motivated by a protected characteristic. The court therefore found that he failed to state a Title VII claim. It instructed that any amended complaint should include facts showing that he filed a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and obtained a notice of the right to sue, if applicable.

Disposition

The court granted Foy 60 days to file an amended complaint containing more facts about each claim and each defendant. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court directed Foy to identify relevant people and their titles, describe the relevant events and approximate dates and locations, explain his injuries, and state the relief sought. It warned that failure to amend within the allowed period, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.

The court directed the clerk to mail the order to Foy and stated that no summons would issue at that time. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.