Liner v. Hochul

Background

Joshua Liner, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims for damages and injunctive relief against Governor Kathy Hochul, Police Officer Michael David, and two unidentified officers. The court understood the complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by persons acting under state authority.

Liner alleged that Ramon Alvarez lived in a residence he owned for approximately sixteen months without paying rent and caused various problems. Liner alleged that, after Alvarez made harassment allegations, unidentified officers woke him and arrested him, and that Officer Michael David unlawfully arrested him on November 23, 2021. Liner also alleged racial discrimination, a conspiracy, emotional distress, and heart problems. He claimed that an executive order or related state eviction restrictions prevented him from evicting Alvarez and that Hochul had agreed to pay rent for people living in properties without permission.

The opinion notes that it was unclear whether Liner was alleging one arrest or two. It also recounts that an earlier order dismissed Liner’s claims against New York State based on state immunity and dismissed his § 1983 claims against Alvarez because Alvarez was a private individual rather than a state actor. The present motion was brought by Governor Hochul.

Reasons for the Ruling

The court dismissed Liner’s claims against Hochul in her official capacity for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because Liner’s allegations concerning Hochul were based on her actions as governor, the court treated those claims as claims against New York State. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment generally prevents such claims in federal court, that Congress had not removed New York’s immunity for § 1983 claims, and that New York had not waived its immunity.

The court also held that the exception allowing prospective relief against state officials did not apply. Liner’s only nonmonetary prospective request involving Hochul was removal of Alvarez from the residence, but Alvarez had already left, making that request moot.

The court further ruled that Hochul would be protected by qualified immunity if Liner’s claims were understood as individual-capacity claims. Qualified immunity generally protects government employees from damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established legal right. The court concluded that Hochul’s signing of an extension of the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act did not violate clearly established rights, particularly because similar state actions had been upheld and the extension included a procedure for contesting a tenant’s claimed hardship.

The court separately found that Liner had not adequately alleged Hochul’s personal involvement. The complaint did not provide a sufficient basis to conclude that Hochul participated in the alleged arrests, conduct by Alvarez, or other constitutional violations. The court stated that a government official cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because the official holds a high position.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court denied leave to amend. Although courts generally allow a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to correct a complaint when a valid claim might be stated, the court found that Liner had alleged no facts that would support a valid § 1983 claim against Hochul and that amendment would therefore be futile.

The conclusion states that Governor Hochul’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail Liner a copy of the order. The opinion does not state that this order ruled on the claims against Officer Michael David or the two unidentified officers.