Sterling v. Human Resources Administration

Background

Rose Sterling filed the action without a lawyer and with permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. She sued the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA), later adding the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and “Medicaid,” which she identified as a New York City agency. She brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by government actors.

Sterling alleged that ACS and its contractor, Good Shepherd Services, made false accusations of child abuse, interfered with her relationship with her adult son, Bob V.E. Sterling, and otherwise disrupted their lives. She also alleged that HRA changed Bob’s Medicaid insurance to an Aetna plan without informing him or her, and that the change resulted in the denial of medications and standard care, including an asthma inhaler. Bob collapsed in a bathtub and died on November 28, 2020. Sterling sought compensation connected to his death and the alleged denial of care.

The court had previously directed Sterling to amend her complaint. It told her to provide facts showing that she had authority to bring claims for Bob’s estate and facts supporting a constitutional due-process claim, including facts about whether state procedures were available or adequate to challenge the alleged insurance change. Sterling filed an amended complaint, but the court found that it did not cure the identified defects.

Court’s analysis

Standing to bring Bob’s claims

Standing is the legal requirement that a person bringing a claim have the right to assert it. The court held that Sterling lacked standing to assert claims belonging to Bob or his estate. Because she was not a lawyer, she could not represent another person in court. She also did not allege that she had been appointed administrator or personal representative of Bob’s estate, or that she was the estate’s only beneficiary or creditor. The court therefore held that she could not pursue claims for Bob’s pain, suffering, or death on his behalf.

Claims against the named agencies

The court held that HRA and ACS, as New York City agencies, were not entities that could be sued under Section 1983. As to any claims Sterling asserted for herself, the court dismissed the claims against those agencies for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

The court also held that “Medicaid” was not a suable New York City agency. Medicaid is a federal program administered by the states, and the New York State Department of Health administers it in New York. The court stated that even treating Sterling’s claims against “Medicaid” as claims against the Department of Health would not allow them to proceed because the Department is protected by the states’ immunity from suit in federal court. The court also noted that Sterling had not alleged that the Department or another authorized agency failed to provide a fair hearing after the benefits decision.

Claims construed as against New York City

Because Sterling appeared to intend to sue New York City, the court construed the amended complaint as asserting claims against the City. A city may be liable under Section 1983 when its own policy, custom, or failure to train causes a constitutional violation. The court nevertheless held that Sterling had not stated a procedural due-process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court had already concluded that the allegations about changing Bob’s Medicaid insurance did not show a deprivation of a property interest without due process. The amended complaint added no facts showing that New York City’s notice and hearing procedures were constitutionally inadequate, or that Sterling or Bob lacked an opportunity to challenge the alleged insurance change or other deprivation. The court therefore held that the complaint failed to state a claim against the City.

The amended complaint also referred to discrimination and the loss of parental rights based on ACS’s alleged accusations. The court declined to consider any substantive due-process claim based on those allegations because the court’s earlier permission to amend was limited and did not authorize adding that claim.

State-law claims and further amendment

The court said that the allegations might suggest state-law claims, such as wrongful death. After dismissing the federal claims, however, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case.

The court also denied further leave to amend. It explained that Sterling had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint and that the defects in the amended complaint could not be cured by another amendment.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action for lack of standing to assert claims on behalf of Bob Sterling and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sterling’s state-law claims. Any additional substantive due-process claim suggested by the amended complaint, but not authorized by the court’s amendment order, was dismissed without prejudice. The court terminated the other pending matters, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.