Izeh v. City of New York

Background

Matthew Izeh, who was not incarcerated and was representing himself, sued the City of New York, an unidentified arresting officer, an unidentified Police Chief, and the Mayor of New York. He alleged that a police officer stopped him in Harlem on June 21, 2017, while he was driving from Times Square to 125th Street; arrested him for driving without a license despite his claim that he had a valid Virginia driver’s license; and caused his vehicle to be towed and impounded. Izeh also alleged that he was held before trial, paid $5,000 in bail, and was prosecuted in state court. The state criminal case was dismissed on November 14, 2017.

The court understood the complaint to assert false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims, procedural-due-process claims, and other claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing suits for certain violations of federal rights by government actors. Izeh also asserted state-law claims. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees and therefore screened the complaint under the statute governing such cases.

Reasons for dismissal

Claims against the arresting officer. The court held that Izeh’s § 1983 claims against the arresting officer arising from the arrest, vehicle seizure, and prosecution appeared untimely. New York’s three-year limitations period applied. The court noted that the relevant period began at different times depending on the claim: false-arrest claims generally begin when the detention without legal process ends; malicious-prosecution claims begin when the criminal case ends favorably; and other § 1983 claims generally begin when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury. Because the custody and vehicle seizure occurred before the criminal case ended on November 14, 2017, the court said the latest limitations deadline appeared to be about November 14, 2020. Izeh filed this action on January 6, 2023. The court therefore dismissed these claims for failure to state a claim because they appeared untimely, while allowing Izeh to explain in an amended complaint why the claims were timely or why the deadline should be extended under equitable tolling.

Claims against the City. The court dismissed Izeh’s § 1983 claims against the City because he did not allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his federal rights. Alleging that an individual City employee acted wrongfully was not enough to establish municipal liability. The court allowed Izeh to amend if he could allege facts sufficient to state a § 1983 claim against the City.

Claims against the Police Chief and Mayor. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against the unidentified Police Chief and the Mayor because Izeh did not allege facts showing that either person was directly and personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. The court said a person cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because that person supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. It allowed Izeh to amend to allege facts showing the direct and personal involvement of those defendants or any other individual defendants.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action and dismissed Izeh’s § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim. It granted Izeh 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the order. If he did not amend or show good cause for failing to do so, the court said it would enter judgment dismissing the federal claims and decline to consider the state-law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Izeh permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.