Harding v. State of New York

Background

Cheyenne C. Harding, proceeding without a lawyer, filed claims against the State of New York; New York State Trooper Timothy H. Finnegan; New York State Police Investigators Timothy P. Gould and James Wollman; and unnamed state police employees. The court understood the complaint to assert constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims. Harding had permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance, a status commonly called in forma pauperis, or IFP.

Claims Against the State

Under the Eleventh Amendment, states generally are immune from lawsuits in federal court unless they waive that immunity or Congress removes it. The court held that New York had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it through § 1983. Because Harding sought monetary relief from an immune defendant, the court dismissed her claims against the State of New York and concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims.

Service on Other Defendants

Because Harding was proceeding IFP, the court directed the Clerk of Court to complete U.S. Marshals Service process forms for Finnegan, Gould, and Wollman, issue summonses, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service for service. The court stated that if service was not completed within 90 days after the summonses were issued, Harding should request more time. Harding was also required to notify the court in writing of any address change.

The court declined at that time to issue an order seeking identifying information about the unnamed “other State Police employees.” It found that Harding had not provided identifying information or alleged facts showing that those employees were personally and directly involved in the events underlying her claims.

Request for Counsel

Harding asked the court to request a pro bono lawyer. The court considered that the merits of the case were the most important factor in deciding such a request, but found that the case was too early for it to assess the merits. The court therefore denied the motion for counsel without prejudice to renewal later.

Conclusion

The court dismissed Harding’s claims against the State of New York, directed service on Finnegan, Gould, and Wollman, and denied the request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Harding an information package.