Shekhem El Bey v. State of New York

Background

Yashua Amen Shekhem El Bey, proceeding without a lawyer, filed claims under several federal statutes, including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, 1985(3), 1986, and 1994. He challenged an April 23, 2004, income-execution order issued by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. He alleged that the order caused the seizure of his property and labor through continuing wage deductions and that a letter sent to his employer falsely stated that a judgment had been entered against him. He also alleged that a later effort to obtain relief in the New York Court of Claims was improperly dismissed.

He asked the federal court to order the defendants to remove and invalidate the income-execution order, declare the tax warrant and defendants’ conduct unlawful and unconstitutional, and award monetary damages. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court applied the screening rules for complaints filed without paying court fees. Those rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers liberally, those filings must still provide enough facts to make a legally plausible claim.

Tax Injunction Act

The court held that the Tax Injunction Act barred the request to invalidate the income-execution order. That law generally prevents federal courts from stopping the assessment, levy, or collection of state taxes when the state offers a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy. The court found that New York provides procedures for challenging tax assessments, including an administrative hearing, review by the tax appeals tribunal, and later judicial review in state court. Because the plaintiff was challenging the collection of state taxes and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, the federal court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant that relief.

The court also noted that a similar restriction applies to damages claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 through a principle requiring federal courts to respect adequate state tax remedies.

Eleventh Amendment Immunity

The court separately held that the Eleventh Amendment barred the plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against the defendants. The amendment generally prevents lawsuits against states in federal court unless the state waives its immunity or Congress removes it. The court stated that this protection extends to state agencies and state officials or employees acting as state representatives. It found that New York had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it through Section 1983. The plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims were therefore dismissed.

Attempted Criminal Charges

The plaintiff also purported to bring federal criminal charges against the defendants. The court held that a private citizen cannot initiate an arrest or federal prosecution against another person. Because the decision to prosecute belongs to prosecutors, the court dismissed this part of the case for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint as barred by the Tax Injunction Act and the Eleventh Amendment and under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It denied leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.