Askins v. The City of New York

Background

Delroy Askins filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. He sued the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, the Police Department’s 25th Precinct, and unidentified employees of that precinct. He sought $1,000,000 in damages and unspecified injunctive relief.

Askins alleged that he is a wheelchair-bound paraplegic. He said that he was robbed and threatened in August 2021 at the intersection of 125th Street and Lexington Avenue in New York, New York. He alleged that someone employed at the 25th Precinct contacted him about what could be done regarding the robbery, after which he made many visits and telephone calls to the precinct. He later came to believe that precinct employees had discriminated against him. He also said that the Civilian Complaint Review Board referred his matter to NYPD Police Headquarters and that he had not received a response from either organization.

The court understood the complaint to assert constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, disability-discrimination claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Reasons for Dismissal

Because Askins proceeded without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint must still provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court dismissed the claims against the NYPD and its 25th Precinct because they are City agencies that cannot generally be sued separately from the City of New York.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the City. A municipality is not liable under Section 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly did something wrong. The plaintiff must allege a City policy, custom, or practice that caused the constitutional violation. The court also explained that government officials generally do not have a constitutional duty to investigate a crime or protect a person from harm, subject to limited exceptions involving custody or government-created danger. Askins did not allege facts showing that either exception applied, or that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the unidentified NYPD employees because Askins did not allege how any particular employee was personally and directly involved in violating his constitutional rights. The court noted that a person cannot be held liable merely because that person supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated another person’s rights.

The court construed the complaint as asserting disability-discrimination claims against the City under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. For purposes of the order, it assumed that Askins was a qualified person with a disability, that the City was covered by those laws, and that the NYPD received federal funding. But it found that Askins had not alleged facts showing that the City denied him access to its services, programs, or activities, or discriminated against him because of his disability.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It granted Askins leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The amended complaint could include facts supporting a Section 1983 claim against the City, identify specific individual defendants and their personal involvement, and provide facts supporting an ADA or Rehabilitation Act claim against the City. The court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the action if Askins did not timely amend or explain why he could not comply with the order.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.