Duryea v. State of New York

Background

Wanda J. Duryea brought the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and under state law. She sought unspecified damages from the State of New York; New York State Trooper Timothy Finnegan; New York State Police Investigators Timothy P. Gould and James Wollman; and “other State Police employees.” She sued the individual defendants in both their official and individual capacities.

The court had previously granted Duryea permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. The order also addressed Duryea’s application asking the court to request a volunteer lawyer to represent her.

Initial review of the claims

Because Duryea was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally valid claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it must read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.

Claims against New York and officials in their official capacities

The court dismissed all claims against the State of New York and all claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities. For the Section 1983 damages claims, the court relied on the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states and state officials sued in their official capacities from federal-court damages claims. The court stated that Congress had not removed New York’s immunity for Section 1983 claims and that New York had not waived its immunity in federal court.

For the state-law damages claims against New York and the officials in their official capacities, the court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. It stated that such claims may be pursued only in the New York Court of Claims. The court therefore dismissed these claims under the Eleventh Amendment and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims against unidentified employees

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the unidentified employees in their individual capacities without prejudice. A Section 1983 claim requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. Duryea alleged no facts about the unidentified employees. The court stated that she could seek permission to file an amended complaint naming those defendants.

Claims allowed to proceed and service

The action will proceed on Duryea’s Section 1983 and state-law claims against Finnegan, Gould, and Wollman in their individual capacities. Because Duryea was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the required service forms, and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued, unless Duryea requests an extension.

Request for counsel

The court denied Duryea’s application asking it to request a volunteer lawyer without prejudice to filing another application later. The court explained that it was too early to assess the merits of the remaining claims. The court terminated the pending counsel motion.

Disposition

The court dismissed all claims except Duryea’s Section 1983 and state-law claims against Finnegan, Gould, and Wollman in their individual capacities. It denied the request for pro bono counsel without prejudice and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.