Madison v. CVS

Background

Malcolm Madison, appearing without a lawyer, sued CVS; a security guard; a supervising manager; and a floor manager. He identified CVS as the store at 241 West 57th Street in New York, New York. He alleged that, between May 23 and June 4, 2022, a person associated with the store punched him in the eye, and that the security guard and managers used a security firm to intimidate him because he was homeless and had a criminal record. Madison alleged an injured and scratched eye and mental and psychological trauma, and requested $2.5 million in damages.

The court had previously allowed Madison to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of an eligible complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss claims when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Federal Claims Under Section 1983

The court interpreted Madison’s constitutional-rights allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute provides a remedy when a person acting under color of state law—meaning with governmental authority or as a state actor—deprives someone of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

The court held that the complaint did not show that CVS or its employees acted under color of state law. CVS was a private entity, and the employees were private parties who did not work for a state or other government body. Madison also alleged no facts suggesting that the defendants acted jointly with the government. The court therefore concluded that these defendants could not be held liable under Section 1983 and dismissed the Section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Possible State-Law Claims

The court said the complaint could be read to assert state-law assault claims. After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case. The court therefore declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Madison might be asserting.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but the court found that the defects here could not be cured by amendment. It therefore denied leave to amend.

The court dismissed Madison’s Section 1983 claims, declined supplemental jurisdiction over possible state-law claims, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.