Pedotti v. Adler

Background

Holiday Oljii Anna Pedotti, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action invoking federal-question jurisdiction and apparently seeking damages and possibly injunctive relief. She named Randolph K. Adler, Jr.; Elise Taylor; Claudia Burton; Anthony Damo; “The Teamsters Union”; Mike Foley “of the Teamsters Union”; “I.D. Clean Solutions”; Nabil Kassem; and “NYPD & BKPD,” which the court understood to mean the New York City Police Department.

Pedotti alleged violations of rights involving life, liberty, free speech, and a fair trial. She also alleged restraining-order violations and made accusations involving harassment, threats, assault, surveillance, an alleged chemical-biological injection, alleged human experimentation, defamation, property and financial matters, and other events. She sought criminal investigations and prosecutions of some defendants. The court treated her later motions, requests, and submissions as supplements to the complaint.

Legal standard

Because Pedotti had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss any part of the complaint that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s filings liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a legally valid claim plausible.

Rulings

Requests for criminal prosecution. The court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction any claims seeking the criminal investigation or prosecution of defendants. It explained that the decision to prosecute belongs to prosecutors, not private citizens, and that Pedotti lacked standing—the legal ability to bring those requests in federal court.

Claims against the New York City Police Department. The court understood Pedotti’s constitutional claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. It dismissed claims based on the police department’s alleged failure to investigate or protect her because the complaint did not allege facts fitting either recognized exception to the general rule that government officials have no constitutional duty to investigate or protect an individual from harm. The court also noted that the police department was an improper defendant and that Pedotti had not alleged a city policy, custom, or practice causing a constitutional violation.

Claims against the other defendants. The court dismissed Pedotti’s § 1983 claims against the remaining defendants for failure to state a claim. Section 1983 generally requires a constitutional or federal-rights violation by someone acting under state authority. The court found that Pedotti alleged no facts showing that the remaining defendants, whom it characterized as private defendants, acted as state actors. The court also explained that representation by a private attorney ordinarily does not create the required state involvement.

Other federal and state-law claims. The court dismissed any other federal-law claims asserted in the complaint or later submissions as frivolous, finding that the allegations appeared irrational and lacked a factual basis or legal theory supporting a viable federal claim. After dismissing the federal claims within its original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Pedotti may have asserted.

Leave to amend and final directives. The court denied leave to amend because it concluded that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. It dismissed the action, denied all pending motions and requests as moot, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate those motions and enter judgment, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied Pedotti permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.