Dounce Al Dey v. Eye Express Optical

Background

Oliver-Vaughn Dounce Al Dey appeared without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance. He sued Eye Express Optical, which the opinion describes as a private optometrist and retail eyeglass and lens store located in Bronx County, New York.

Dounce Al Dey alleged that he went to Eye Express Optical on February 2, 2022, to obtain replacement eyeglass lenses. An employee named Nicole told him that he had to wear a mask in the store because of Covid-19. He alleged that he had previously been told by telephone that a mask was unnecessary and that he could not breathe because of a medical condition. He said Nicole threatened to call police or security if he did not wear a mask. He also alleged racial discrimination and cited several federal and state laws. After he sent a notice threatening a lawsuit and demanding that the business replace his lenses, Eye Express Optical told him it no longer wanted to serve him.

Court’s Analysis

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

Civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A claim under Section 1983 requires a violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law. The court dismissed these claims because Eye Express Optical was a private party and did not appear to work for a state or other government body.

Claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986, and 1988. The court understood the Section 1985 reference as an attempted claim that the defendant conspired to deprive Dounce Al Dey of civil rights. It found no facts suggesting a conspiracy, an act advancing a conspiracy, or racial or other class-based discriminatory motivation. Because a Section 1986 claim depends on a viable Section 1985 conspiracy claim, the Section 1986 claim also failed. The court said Section 1988, which can allow attorney-fee recovery to a prevailing party in certain civil-rights actions, did not apply because Dounce Al Dey was not a prevailing party.

Claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. The court dismissed these claims because those provisions are federal criminal statutes, and a private person cannot use them to prosecute another person or obtain an order requiring a prosecutor to do so.

Americans with Disabilities Act claims. Dounce Al Dey cited 42 U.S.C. § 12132, a provision in Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title II applies to public entities, but Eye Express Optical was a private retail business, so the court found that the complaint did not state a Title II claim.

The court also considered Title III, which applies to places of public accommodation, including retail establishments and certain health-care offices. To state a Title III claim, Dounce Al Dey had to allege that he had a disability covered by the Act, that Eye Express Optical operated a public accommodation, and that it discriminated against him because of that disability. The court found that he did not provide enough facts showing an underlying condition that substantially limited a major life activity. It also found that his allegations focused on his refusal to wear a mask, rather than showing that disability was a motivating or substantial factor in the denial of service. In addition, he did not allege that he requested a reasonable accommodation. The court noted that Title III does not provide money damages, while the complaint sought money damages.

State-law claims. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Dounce Al Dey may have intended to assert.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It granted Dounce Al Dey 30 days to replead a Title III ADA claim. Any amended complaint had to include facts supporting a covered disability, identify Eye Express Optical as an operator of a public accommodation, describe the alleged discrimination, and state the requested injunctive relief. The court also instructed that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint and that any desired facts or claims had to be repeated in it.

If no amended complaint was filed within the allowed period, the court said it would enter judgment dismissing the federal claims and decline to consider the state-law claims. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.