Ibntalal v. PATH DHS Department of Homeless Services

Background

Najma Juma Ibntalal proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. She sued the City of New York and alleged that the defendants violated her rights and those of her daughter. The second amended complaint sought $20 million in damages and stated that the action arose under New York Penal Code § 120.00, which the court noted concerns assault in the third degree.

The pleading described alleged events from 2011 through 2022 in multiple locations, including New York, Connecticut, and other states. It discussed matters involving shelters, the Department of Homeless Services, schools, medical treatment, police, child-protection services, and other events. Although Ibntalal attempted to include her minor daughter as another plaintiff, the court treated Ibntalal as the sole plaintiff because a person who is not a lawyer cannot represent a child in federal court.

Earlier amendment order

In an April 2022 order, the court had dismissed claims against several agencies and entities because they could be sued only in the name of the City of New York, rather than in the agencies’ names. The court also found that Ibntalal had not alleged a City policy, custom, or practice that caused a constitutional-rights violation, but allowed her to file a second amended complaint.

The court instructed her to identify who violated her federally protected rights, how and when the violations occurred, where they occurred, and why she was entitled to relief. It further instructed her that claims against the City needed facts connecting a City policy, custom, or practice to the alleged violation.

Reasons for dismissal

The court reviewed the second amended complaint under the rules governing complaints filed without paying the filing fee. Those rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that pleadings filed by people without lawyers are read generously, but they still must satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by providing a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court concluded that the second amended complaint exceeded both the scope of the original lawsuit and the permission granted in the April order. Rather than clarifying the particular incidents in the original complaint, it substantially expanded the allegations to cover many unrelated matters and locations.

The court also found that the pleading did not comply with Rule 8. It did not provide a short and plain statement, did not give the City fair notice of the nature of the claims, and did not clarify the original claims. In addition, it did not allege facts showing that a policy, custom, or practice of the City caused a violation of Ibntalal’s rights.

Disposition

The court dismissed the second amended complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the April 2022 order to amend. Although courts generally allow a person without a lawyer to amend a defective complaint, the court declined to grant further leave to amend because Ibntalal had already been given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies and, in the court’s view, the defects could not be cured through another amendment.

The court stated that judgment would issue. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal.