Floyd v. Filipowski

Background

John Floyd III proceeded without a lawyer and sued Governor Kathy Hochul, Assistant District Attorney Eliza Filipowski, Police Officer Vincent Giovanniello, and Christopher Sevier under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that New York Executive Orders 202.60, 202.67, and 202.8 violated federal due-process and speedy-trial rights, state constitutional rights, and New York criminal-procedure law.

The court had previously dismissed the claims against Filipowski and Sevier and dismissed the claims against Giovanniello with leave to replead. Floyd did not file an amended complaint, so the remaining claims were against Governor Hochul. Hochul moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Floyd did not oppose the motion.

Mootness

The court held that Floyd’s challenges to the executive orders were not moot. Although the orders had been rescinded, the court concluded that Floyd remained under a “constant threat” that similar restrictions could be reintroduced, given the continuing uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the Governor’s remaining authority to modify existing restrictions under specified procedures.

The court separately held that Floyd’s request for an injunction stopping his criminal proceeding was moot because the proceeding related to his claims had ended. That request therefore no longer presented a live dispute.

Constitutionality of the Executive Orders

The court evaluated the constitutional challenge under Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Under that standard, public-health measures are given substantial deference and are unconstitutional if they have no real or substantial relation to public health or are a plain and clear invasion of rights protected by fundamental law.

The court held that Floyd had not alleged or demonstrated that the executive orders lacked a real or substantial connection to public health. It also held that he had not shown that the orders were unconstitutional because they were allegedly vague or overbroad. The court stated that it was not its role to second-guess the Governor’s approach to COVID-19 public-health measures, particularly amid medical and scientific uncertainty. The court concluded that Floyd had not stated sufficient facts or demonstrated that the executive orders were unconstitutional.

Eleventh Amendment and State-Law Claims

The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Floyd’s claims concerning alleged violations of state constitutional rights and New York criminal-procedure law. Those claims were asserted against the Governor in her official capacity. The court explained that the state had not waived its immunity and that § 1983 had not eliminated it.

The court also considered the exception allowing suits against state officials for prospective relief involving an ongoing violation of federal law. It held that the exception did not apply because the executive orders had been rescinded, Floyd alleged only past injuries, and he had not pleaded an ongoing federal-law violation. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims. It dismissed those claims without prejudice.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court denied leave to amend because it found that the defects in Floyd’s federal claims were substantive and could not be cured by better pleading. The court granted Hochul’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, dismissed the state claims without prejudice, and terminated the action.