Lewis v. Jacobson

Background

Regina Lewis, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of Newburgh and several city officials: Joseph Donat, Ramona Monteverde, Torrance Harvey, Patty Sofokles, Karen Mejia, Anthony Grice, Robert Sklarez, and Omari Shakur. Lewis identified herself as the chief executive officer of Mothers Against Institutional Negligence and the Newburgh Enrichment Center. She alleged that, since 2009, the defendants had refused to communicate meaningfully with her, meet with her, place her proposals on a City Council agenda, or provide funding through community constituent services. She also alleged that the defendants supported another organization instead of her organizations and discriminated against her based on race, disability, gender, class, expression, and her status as a minority business owner.

Lewis asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims against state actors for violating federal rights. She named the individual defendants in both their official and individual capacities. She also invoked the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the First Amendment, and 18 U.S.C. § 242, a criminal civil-rights statute. In addition, she alleged that the Newburgh Armory Unity Center infringed her intellectual property by implementing a drone project she had proposed. An earlier order had dismissed claims against Johnathan Jacobson, James Skoufis, and Sean Patrick Maloney on legislative-immunity grounds.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. At that stage, the court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true but did not accept legal conclusions or unsupported labels as true. The court also gave Lewis’s filings the more forgiving treatment required for a person proceeding without a lawyer, while explaining that it could not invent facts for her.

The court first dismissed the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities because those claims duplicated the municipal-liability claim against the City of Newburgh. The court also dismissed the claims against Monteverde, Sofokles, Mejia, Grice, Sklarez, and Shakur because Lewis did not allege facts showing that they were personally involved in violating her rights.

The court rejected Lewis’s equal-protection theories. Lewis had not identified sufficiently similar organizations or people who received better treatment, and she did not allege facts showing that the defendants acted because of her race, disability, gender, class, expression, minority-business-owner status, or an intent to harm her. The court also stated that Lewis had no federally protected property interest in meeting with city officials, obtaining their assistance, or receiving government funding for proposed projects.

The court dismissed the disability claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Lewis did not allege facts showing that she had, or was regarded as having, a qualifying disability. Even assuming she had a disability, she did not allege facts showing that the defendants knew about it or discriminated against her because of it. The court also noted that the defendants had argued that she failed to exhaust an administrative process, but the court did not treat the claim as abandoned because of her status as a self-represented litigant.

The court interpreted Lewis’s allegation concerning “expression” as a First Amendment retaliation claim. Even assuming her advocacy was protected speech, Lewis did not allege that the defendants’ conduct chilled her speech or caused another concrete harm. She also did not plausibly allege that the refusal to meet with her or fund her projects was caused by the content of her advocacy. The court further held that the right to petition the government does not require officials to listen or respond in the particular way a person wants, and that there is no standalone constitutional right to pursue happiness.

The court dismissed the claim against the City under Monell, the doctrine governing when a municipality may be liable for an official policy or custom, because Lewis had not established an underlying constitutional violation. The court also dismissed the claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242 because that criminal statute does not create a private right to sue.

The court dismissed any additional claims concerning the alleged intellectual-property infringement. Lewis did not adequately describe the intellectual property, the alleged copying, or what any defendant did that could constitute infringement. The claims against the Newburgh Armory Unity Center were dismissed on the court’s own initiative because Lewis had not obtained permission to add that entity as a defendant and because the claims were frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It declined to grant Lewis another opportunity to amend because she had already amended after receiving notice of the deficiencies, did not request another amendment, and did not indicate what additional facts could cure the problems. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, send Lewis a copy of the opinion and order, and close the case.