Baker v. Pestana Park Avenue
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-09253
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Baker v. Pestana Park Avenue, Judge Swain dismissed the action, declined state-law jurisdiction, and ordered Baker to explain why future fee-free filings should not be restricted.
Eric Tymell Baker’s claims were dismissed or declined for federal consideration; he was also required to explain why future fee-free civil filings should not require court permission. Pestana Park Avenue prevailed on the dismissal of the federal claims.
What happened
In Baker v. Pestana Park Avenue, Eric Tymell Baker, representing himself, sued a private hotel over alleged mishandling of belongings and living quarters, an alleged illegal search, a police call, and other problems. He sought $75,000 and an apology.
The court treated the complaint as asserting constitutional claims under a federal civil-rights law and state-law claims. It dismissed the federal claims because Baker did not allege that the private hotel acted for the government. After dismissing those claims, the court declined to consider the possible state-law claims in federal court.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action, denied Baker permission to amend, and ordered him to explain within 30 days why he should not be barred from filing future civil actions without paying fees unless the court first gives permission. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Baker v. Pestana Park Avenue · No. 1:22-cv-09253
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 5, 2022
Background
Eric Tymell Baker, appearing without a lawyer, filed the action under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. Baker sued Pestana Park Avenue, which the opinion describes as a private hotel located in New York, New York.
Baker identified “duty of care” and “negligence” as the bases for federal jurisdiction. He alleged that the hotel improperly handled his belongings, lacked “ardence,” conducted an illegal search while he occupied the hotel, called police without just cause, provided a room smaller than expected, failed to resolve a promised correction, and did not honor a booked experience. He sought $75,000 in damages and an apology. He also attached a state-court notice of judgment stating that an arbitrator had found for the defendant in an earlier action he brought against it.
Federal claims
The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. A § 1983 claim requires allegations that a constitutional or federal-law right was violated by a person acting under state law. The court held that Baker alleged no facts showing that the private hotel acted as a state actor. It therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim under the statute governing dismissal of fee-free complaints.
State-law claims and amendment
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims after federal claims are dismissed—over any state-law claims Baker may have been asserting. The court also denied leave to amend because it concluded that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by an amendment.
Order to show cause
The court noted that, before Baker filed this action, it had warned him in two other related proceedings that further meritless litigation could lead to a restriction on future fee-free filings. The court directed Baker to submit a declaration within 30 days explaining why it should not bar him from filing any future civil action in this court without first obtaining permission. If he does not submit the declaration on time, or if it does not show good cause, the court stated that it will enter such a filing restriction. This was an order to explain why the restriction should not be imposed, not the final imposition of the restriction itself.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action. It dismissed Baker’s federal-law claims for failure to state a claim, declined to consider his possible state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction, denied leave to amend, and ordered him to show cause regarding a possible future filing restriction. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.