Richardson v. Adams
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-07156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Richardson v. Adams, Judge Swain granted Raymond Richardson 60 days to amend his deficient complaint, after finding no federal jurisdiction as pleaded.
Raymond Richardson, who must file an amended complaint within 60 days to continue the case; Mayor Eric Adams, against whom the current complaint was found insufficient but who remains named as the defendant at this stage.
What happened
In Richardson v. Adams, Raymond Richardson, representing himself, sued Mayor Eric Adams and sought $20 million. Richardson alleged that city and state officials denied him the ability to file a criminal or other legal action.
The court found that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because both Richardson and Adams reside in New York. It also found that the complaint did not provide enough facts to show a federal claim or explain Adams’s personal involvement. The court explained that a private person cannot force prosecutors to bring a criminal case.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Richardson 60 days to file an amended complaint describing the relevant facts, defendants’ actions, injuries, and requested relief. The court warned that failing to amend could lead to dismissal and denied Richardson permission to proceed without paying fees on an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Richardson v. Adams · No. 1:22-cv-07156
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 17, 2022
Background
Raymond Richardson, appearing without a lawyer, sued Mayor Eric Adams. Richardson invoked diversity jurisdiction and alleged that he was denied the right to file a criminal action or other legal action against city and state officials. He sought $20 million in damages. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Jurisdiction and pleading standards
The court explained that federal courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because the opinion states that both Richardson and Adams reside in New York.
The court interpreted Richardson’s allegations as potentially asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows a person to seek damages for the violation of federal rights by someone acting under state law. A proper § 1983 claim must identify a violation of a federal right and facts showing the defendant’s personal involvement. The court found that Richardson’s complaint did not describe what happened, how Adams was involved, or how the events violated Richardson’s constitutional rights. The court therefore found that, at that stage, it lacked federal-question jurisdiction. It also explained that a private person cannot initiate a criminal prosecution or obtain a court order requiring a prosecutor to act.
Order
Because Richardson was representing himself, the court granted him leave to amend rather than dismissing the complaint at that point. The amended complaint must provide a short statement of the facts supporting each claim, identify the relevant people and their actions, state when and where the events occurred, describe Richardson’s injuries, and identify the relief sought. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint, so Richardson must repeat any facts or claims he wants the court to consider.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Richardson to submit the amended complaint within 60 days, using the required caption and docket number. The court stated that if he did not comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Richardson permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.