Kneitel v. Camilo

Background

Michael J. Kneitel, representing himself, sued Commissioner Lisette Camilo, the City of New York, the New York City Department of Administrative Services (DCAS), Katrina Porter, Michael Reyes, and two unnamed DCAS examiners. The complaint was understood to assert due-process and equal-protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute that allows claims against state or local actors for violating federal rights.

Kneitel alleged that DCAS and city agencies improperly removed him from an eligibility list for an auto-mechanic position after he was passed over for only one opening with each of two agencies, even though he contended that New York civil-service law required three unsuccessful referrals before removal. He later applied for an automobile-electrician position, passed both parts of the examination, and received a perfect score on the practical test. DCAS initially found him unqualified based on his education and work experience, but later reversed that decision and restored his name to the eligibility list. By then, eleven applicants had been hired, and Kneitel alleged that the delay caused him to lose seniority and the opportunity to bid for a work location.

Claims and jurisdiction

The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing both that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that the complaint failed to state a claim. The court rejected the jurisdictional argument. Because the complaint asserted claims under federal law and cited 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the court concluded that it had federal-question jurisdiction to decide whether the complaint stated valid claims.

Substantive due process

The court dismissed the substantive due-process claims for failure to state a claim. Substantive due process protects against government action that is so arbitrary, oppressive, or extreme that it shocks the conscience. The court concluded that the alleged errors in handling Kneitel’s applications and examination results, even if proven, were routine administrative mistakes rather than conduct sufficiently egregious to violate the Constitution. The alleged loss of an employment opportunity did not change that conclusion.

Procedural due process

The court also dismissed the procedural due-process claims for failure to state a claim. Procedural due process generally requires adequate procedures before the government takes away a protected property interest. The court treated the alleged conduct by the unnamed examiners as random and unauthorized acts by employees. For that type of conduct, the court held that New York’s Article 78 proceeding—a state-court procedure for challenging decisions by state or local agencies—was an adequate remedy after the alleged deprivation.

As to Camilo, Reyes, and Porter, the court understood Kneitel’s complaint to be that they failed to provide the relief he requested after the examination and eligibility-list problems. The court held that their failure to grant that relief did not make the available Article 78 procedure inadequate.

Equal protection

The court dismissed the equal-protection claim for failure to state a claim. Kneitel did not allege that he belonged to a protected or otherwise identifiable class, that he was treated differently from similarly situated people outside such a class, or facts supporting a claim that he was intentionally treated differently as a class of one.

State-law claims and disposition

To the extent the complaint asserted state-law claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning it chose not to decide those related state claims after dismissing all federal claims. Those state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court stated that Kneitel could seek to bring them in state court.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It stated that it did not believe an amended complaint could adequately plead a federal claim, but allowed Kneitel to request permission to amend by letter no later than March 27, 2023. If he did not submit that request, the court would enter final judgment of dismissal and direct the Clerk of Court to close the case.