Torres v. The Blackstone Group

Background

Wilfredo Torres, appearing without a lawyer, sued The Blackstone Group, which the opinion identifies as his landlord; building General Manager Elijah Smalls; Assistant Manager Julia Rodriguez; Copley Coffee 1, LLC, identified in the complaint as operating a Dunkin Donuts below his apartment; and the U.S. Department of Justice. Torres invoked federal-question jurisdiction and sought $10 million in damages.

Torres alleged that on June 11, 2022, Smalls opened a hole in the ceiling of the coffee shop, which was the floor of Torres’s apartment, used heavy drilling equipment, and flooded the apartment with a strange-smelling liquid. He alleged that this damaged legal files and ruined the wooden floor. The opinion states that the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development issued a violation against Blackstone, that Blackstone repaired the floor, and that Blackstone later flooded the apartment again, damaging the replacement floor.

Torres also alleged that Smalls and Rodriguez systematically stole his legal mail and that Blackstone withheld a time-sensitive legal document. He claimed that these actions interfered with his right to a fair trial in other lawsuits. He further alleged that Smalls was connected to an FBI-CIA program and that the Department of Justice or Federal Bureau of Investigation was involved in causing the damage.

Legal standard

Because Torres had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen his complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought damages from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make a legally valid claim plausible.

Department of Justice

The court held that federal agencies are generally protected from suit unless the government has waived that protection. Torres did not identify a federal statute waiving the Department of Justice’s protection, and the court found no basis for such a waiver in his allegations. The court therefore dismissed the claims against the Department of Justice based on sovereign immunity. The court stated that the same analysis would apply if the complaint were construed as naming the Federal Bureau of Investigation as another federal agency.

The court also declined to grant leave to amend to assert a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. It explained that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not provide a remedy for constitutional-rights claims and has additional administrative-exhaustion requirements.

Claims against private defendants

The court construed Torres’s allegations that the defendants violated his constitutional civil rights as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That law permits claims against people acting under state law, but private parties generally are not liable under it. The court held that The Blackstone Group, Elijah Smalls, Julia Rodriguez, and Copley Coffee 1, LLC were private parties and that Torres therefore had not stated a claim against them under Section 1983.

The court also held that Torres’s allegation that Smalls was connected to an FBI-CIA program was conclusory and implausible. It did not provide a basis for treating Smalls as a state actor.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), declined to grant leave to amend because amendment would be futile, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Torres permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. It warned that repetitive or frivolous litigation could result in an order restricting future fee-free filings unless Torres first obtained court permission.