Heyward v. The City of New York

Background

Michael Heyward brought this self-represented action against the City of New York, alleging that City vaccination requirements violated his constitutional rights. He challenged the Key to NYC program, which required certain establishments to prevent patrons from entering covered premises unless they displayed proof of vaccination and identification with matching information. Heyward described himself as an unvaccinated New York City resident and alleged that the rules restricted his movement and participation in New York City.

He requested exclusion from the City’s vaccination mandates, a “free pass” to enter buildings and establishments and participate in activities, and recognition of natural immunity as a superior alternative to COVID-19 vaccination. The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) addresses the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; Rule 12(b)(6) addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Mootness ruling

The court granted the City’s motion in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(1), finding that Heyward’s challenge to the Key to NYC program was moot. A claim is moot when an intervening event means the court can no longer provide effective relief. The court explained that the patron-related requirements expired on March 7, 2022, so it could no longer exempt Heyward from rules that were no longer in effect.

The court rejected Heyward’s argument that some businesses continued voluntarily checking patrons’ vaccination status. Because Heyward sued only the City, he could not obtain relief from private businesses’ separate decisions. The court also rejected his argument that future COVID-19 outbreaks might lead to renewed restrictions. It found that reinstatement of the program was speculative, noting the City’s vaccination levels, reduced severe illness, and the passage of approximately ten months without reinstatement.

The court further concluded that Heyward’s reference in his opposition to possible employment consequences did not prevent mootness. His complaint did not allege employment mandates imposed by the City, and he could not add that theory through a brief. As to his request that natural immunity be recognized as an alternative to vaccination, the court found that the request was vague and disconnected from a specific controversy in which recognition would provide effective relief.

Disposition and amendment

The court did not reach the City’s Rule 12(b)(6) arguments because it resolved the case on mootness grounds. In light of Heyward’s self-represented status and his reference to possible employment issues, the court granted him permission to file an amended complaint within 45 days. Any amended complaint would replace the original complaint and would need to include all allegations he wanted the court to consider. The order resolved the City’s dismissal motion and directed the Clerk to keep the case open for 45 days while awaiting a timely amended complaint.