Harewood-Bey v. Biden

Background

Diana Harewood-Bey filed this self-represented action on behalf of herself, Lisa Warburton-El, and the Federation Moorish Science Temple of America. She named President Joe Biden, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, Mayor Bill de Blasio, Floral Agency, Biljiana Stodjadinovic, and Marie Kingsley as defendants. The opinion states that Harewood-Bey alleged violations of religious rights connected to vaccination or testing requirements and asserted that she had been terminated after her employer denied her request for a religious exemption from vaccination.

The complaint did not identify the relief sought. It also did not provide facts explaining what happened or how each defendant allegedly violated Harewood-Bey’s rights. The court noted that the complaint might be understood to raise a claim under the First Amendment’s protection for religious exercise or possibly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but Harewood-Bey did not specify the statutory basis for her claims.

Parallel state-court case

The court considered whether to decline to exercise jurisdiction because an identical complaint was pending in Westchester County Supreme Court. Under the Colorado River doctrine, a federal court may, in exceptional circumstances, abstain from deciding a case when a parallel state-court proceeding could comprehensively resolve the dispute. The court found that the state and federal cases were parallel, but concluded that abstention was not warranted.

The court found that no property was involved, the federal and state courts appeared equally convenient, the state case had made little progress beyond filing the complaint, and federal law appeared to supply the rule of decision. The possibility of piecemeal litigation favored abstention, while the factor concerning protection of the plaintiffs’ rights in state court was neutral. On balance, the court retained jurisdiction.

Claims brought for other parties

Because Harewood-Bey was proceeding without a lawyer, she could not represent Warburton-El or the Federation Moorish Science Temple of America in federal court. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice all claims asserted on behalf of Warburton-El, who had not signed the complaint, and the organization. “Without prejudice” means those claims were not barred from being brought again in an appropriate way.

Pleading deficiencies and leave to amend

The court ruled that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a short and plain statement containing enough facts to make a claim plausible. Harewood-Bey had not alleged facts showing what any defendant did, how the conduct violated her rights, or why she was entitled to relief. Because the court could not say that amendment would be futile, it granted her leave to file an amended complaint.

The court instructed Harewood-Bey to identify the relevant people, describe each relevant event and each defendant’s personal involvement, provide approximate dates and locations, describe her injuries, and state the relief sought. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims she wanted to preserve had to be repeated.

Immunity rulings

The court dismissed the claims against President Biden to the extent they were based on official presidential acts because the President has absolute immunity from damages liability for official acts. The court also dismissed the claims against Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch under judicial immunity because the allegations appeared to concern acts related to their judicial responsibilities, and the complaint did not allege facts showing that they acted outside those responsibilities or their jurisdiction.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered that all claims asserted on behalf of Lisa Warburton-El and the Federation Moorish Science Temple of America were dismissed without prejudice. The court also dismissed Harewood-Bey’s claims against President Biden and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Harewood-Bey was granted 60 days to file an amended complaint. No summons would issue at that time, and the court stated that failure to amend within the deadline, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.