Lopez v. U.S. Department of the Interior

Background

Mariah Lopez, appearing without a lawyer, sued the U.S. Department of the Interior, the National Park Service, the Hudson River Park Trust, the New York State Executive Chamber, and the New York State Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. She challenged an ongoing project installing a beach and soccer fields in Hudson River Park in Manhattan. She alleged discrimination based on race, disability, and gender identity and invoked constitutional provisions, the National Historic Preservation Act, Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, and state laws. She sought injunctive relief and money damages.

The court had previously allowed Lopez to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It later determined that a pending state-court case no longer created an abstention issue because the state court had dismissed that matter. The court then reviewed Lopez’s federal complaint under the standards governing complaints filed without prepayment of fees.

Rule 8 and Screening

The court held that Lopez’s allegations were spread across a complaint, motions, letters, declarations, and hundreds of pages of attachments. The submissions were repetitive, included irrelevant information, and did not explain how the named defendants were involved in violating her federally protected rights. The court concluded that the submissions did not provide the short and plain statement required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 or enough factual detail to show a plausible claim for relief.

The court granted Lopez leave to file an amended complaint using a single complaint form and avoiding unnecessary repetition.

Claims Against State Agencies

The court construed the complaint as asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Hudson River Park Trust, the New York State Executive Chamber, and the New York State Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. The court assumed, without deciding, that the Hudson River Park Trust was a state actor for purposes of the case.

The court held that these claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states and state instrumentalities from suits in federal court. It dismissed Lopez’s Section 1983 claims against those three state agencies.

The court also found that Lopez failed to state a Title VII claim because she did not name the former governor whom she alleged had failed to provide her a promised paid position, and she did not allege facts showing that any named defendant discriminated against her or retaliated against her because of protected conduct. The court likewise found that she failed to state an Americans with Disabilities Act claim because she alleged that she was disabled but did not provide facts showing that she qualified as disabled under the statute or that a defendant discriminated or retaliated against her because of her disability.

Claims Against Federal Agencies

The court explained that federal agencies are generally immune from suit unless that immunity has been waived. It held that Lopez could not seek damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act for constitutional violations against the Department of the Interior or the National Park Service. It also noted that an Federal Tort Claims Act claim requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing in federal court. The court stated that any such claims must be dismissed without prejudice unless Lopez alleges that she completed the required exhaustion.

Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act, the court explained that the statute generally requires federal agencies to follow procedures for considering effects on historic properties; it does not require a particular project outcome. Even assuming the statute provides a private cause of action, the court found that Lopez’s allegations—that defendants ignored historical information and approved a project contrary to her preferred outcome—did not show a failure to comply with the statute’s procedures.

Because Lopez sought non-monetary relief, the court construed the complaint as also asserting a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that her allegations did not show that defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act or its requirements for challenging final agency action.

The court also found that Lopez did not provide facts showing how Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act applied to the project. She did not name the Department of Transportation, its secretary, or the Federal Highway Administration as defendants, and the complaint did not suggest that those entities were involved.

State-Law Claims and Leave to Amend

The court declined to decide at that stage whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—because it was not clear that Lopez could state any claim within the court’s original federal jurisdiction. It would decide later whether to hear the state-law claims.

In light of Lopez’s self-represented status, the court granted her 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to comply with Rule 8, be labeled “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 22-CV-4744 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that if Lopez did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court would decline to consider the state-law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Lopez permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.