Liner v. Hochul
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-11116
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Liner v. Hochul, Judge Ramos dismissed claims against New York and Alvarez, while ordering identification and service steps for remaining defendants.
Joshua Liner’s claims against the State of New York and Ramon Alvarez were dismissed, and leave to replead the claims against Alvarez was denied. Claims involving Governor Kathy Hochul and Michael David proceeded to service, while the court ordered identification of the two John Doe officers and required an amended complaint naming them.
What happened
In Liner v. Hochul, Joshua Liner, representing himself, sued Governor Kathy Hochul, New York, Ramon Alvarez, police officer Michael David, and two unidentified officers. He alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights and sought money and court-ordered relief.
The court dismissed Liner’s claims against New York because the state is generally protected from federal lawsuits, and dismissed his claims against Alvarez because the complaint did not show that Alvarez acted for the state. The court also denied Liner permission to rewrite the claims against Alvarez because doing so would not fix the problem.
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered New York City’s Corporation Counsel to identify the two unidentified officers and ordered summonses for Hochul and David. Liner must file an amended complaint after receiving the officers’ information and serve Hochul and David within 90 days after summonses are issued.
The detailed version
- Liner v. Hochul · No. 1:21-cv-11116
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 17, 2022
Background
Joshua Liner, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims for damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against people who violate federal rights while acting for the government. He sued Governor Kathy Hochul, the State of New York, Ramon Alvarez, Police Officer Michael David, and two unidentified officers assigned to the New York City Police Department’s 40th Precinct. Liner alleged that Alvarez was living in his Bronx apartment despite owing him rent arrears and that police officers arrested him based on accusations made by Alvarez, including an arrest on November 23, 2021. Liner had paid the filing fees.
Claims Against New York
The court dismissed Liner’s claims against the State of New York for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment. The court explained that states generally cannot be sued in federal court unless they waive that protection or Congress removes it. The court found that Congress had not removed New York’s protection for § 1983 claims and that New York had not waived it.
Claims Against Alvarez
The court dismissed Liner’s § 1983 claims against Alvarez for failure to state a claim. A § 1983 claim requires a violation of a federal right by someone acting under state law. The court treated Alvarez as a private individual and found that Liner alleged no facts showing that Alvarez was a state actor. The court also explained that contacting or providing information to police, even allegedly false information, does not by itself make a private person a state actor. The court denied Liner leave to replead these claims because amendment would be futile.
Unidentified Officers and Service
The court found that Liner had provided enough information for the New York City Police Department to identify the two unidentified officers. It directed the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York to provide their identities, badge numbers, and service addresses to Liner and the court within 60 days. Within 30 days after receiving that information, Liner must file an amended complaint naming the officers. The amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and the court will screen it before deciding whether to issue summonses.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Governor Hochul and Michael David. Liner must serve them within 90 days after the summonses are issued or request an extension. The court stated that it may dismiss the claims against them under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if he does neither. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.