Nieves v. Johnson

Background

Michael Nieves, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Martha Johnson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint alleged that, during telephone conversations in April 2020, Nieves and Johnson agreed that Johnson would hold check number 49187, worth $450, for safekeeping. Nieves alleged that Johnson agreed to send the money by wire transfer when requested.

In November 2021, Nieves repeatedly asked Johnson to transfer the money to a friend for necessary survival expenses for the friend and Nieves. Johnson said she required written documentation, which Nieves said he could not provide because of problems with mail at Rikers Island. In early February 2022, Johnson told Nieves she would send the funds by Federal Express, but Nieves alleged that he had not received them when he filed the complaint. He sought $450 in damages and $5 million in punitive damages.

The court had previously allowed Nieves to proceed without prepaying filing fees. At the screening stage, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought relief from an immune defendant. The court also had to interpret a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally, while still requiring enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Federal Claim

Section 1983 provides a claim when a person acting under state law violates a right protected by the Constitution or federal law. The court explained that private parties generally are not liable under Section 1983 because the statute governs state actors. Because Johnson was alleged to be a private person and was not alleged to work for a state or other government body, the court held that Nieves failed to state a Section 1983 claim.

Possible State-Law Claims

The court said the complaint could be read to assert state-law claims. Because it dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—that is, authority to hear related state-law claims—in this case.

Amendment and Litigation Warning

The court declined to grant Nieves permission to amend the complaint, finding that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also warned that further duplicative, repetitive, or meritless litigation could result in an order barring Nieves from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless he first obtained permission.

Disposition

The court dismissed Nieves’s Section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Nieves might be asserting. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.