Roberts v. The NYS Department of Taxation and Finance

Background

Jazmine I. Roberts, appearing without a lawyer, sued the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (DTF), the DTF Commissioner, and DTF employees identified as “Tara Unknown” and “Harbinger Unknown.” She alleged that the defendants interfered with her receipt of a $600 federal Recovery Rebate Credit. The court understood her allegations to concern events between December 20 and December 28, 2021, including her detention in the Westchester County Jail.

According to the complaint, the federal government mailed Roberts’s Recovery Rebate Credit check to her last known residential address while she was detained. After her release on bail, she contacted the DTF and was told to send a copy of her federal tax form. She alleged that DTF representatives later told her that the credit had been adjusted to $585.02. She sought damages and the return of the full credit.

Reasons for dismissal

The court reviewed the complaint under the statute requiring dismissal of a fee-waived complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. It also considered whether it had authority to hear the claims. Although the court read pro se pleadings generously, it explained that the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a legal claim plausible.

Claims against the DTF under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court understood Roberts to assert federal constitutional claims against the DTF under Section 1983, a law allowing certain claims for violations of federal rights by state actors. The court dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the Eleventh Amendment generally protects states and state agencies from suit in federal court. It determined that the DTF is an arm of New York State, that Congress had not removed the state’s immunity for Section 1983 claims, and that New York had not waived that immunity.

Tax-Injunction Act. The court also understood Roberts to allege that the DTF had seized at least part of her federal credit to satisfy a state tax debt. To the extent she sought an order requiring the individual defendants to return the full credit, the court dismissed the requests for injunctive or declaratory relief under the Tax-Injunction Act. That law generally bars federal courts from stopping the assessment, collection, or enforcement of a state tax when the state provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy. The court concluded that New York provides procedures for administrative and state-court review of tax assessments.

In a footnote, the court stated that if Roberts asserted damages claims under Section 1983 against the individual defendants based on the seizure of the credit, those claims were dismissed under the principle of comity, which counsels federal courts not to interfere with state tax matters.

Americans with Disabilities Act claims. The court also construed the complaint as asserting claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act against all defendants. It dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim. Roberts alleged no specific facts showing that she had a disability covered by the statute, and she did not allege facts showing that the DTF denied her access to its services or discriminated against her because of a disability. The court said this conclusion applied even assuming that she was a qualified individual with a disability.

Leave to amend and final disposition

The court denied Roberts leave to amend because it concluded that the defects in her complaint could not be cured by an amendment. It dismissed the action. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Roberts permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.