Morris v. Trump

Background

Keith S. Morris filed the action without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He alleged that defendants violated his rights by refusing to renew his tow-truck license in 2017 because of his felony conviction and by conspiring to deprive him of Social Security and unemployment benefits. He sought damages.

The court had previously directed Morris to amend his original complaint. That order explained that some claims were barred by government immunity, that claims against individual defendants did not adequately allege their personal involvement, that Morris had not alleged a final Social Security decision, and that a claim concerning the 2017 towing-license denial appeared to be outside the three-year filing period. The court allowed him to amend and instructed him to provide facts supporting any delay in that period.

Morris filed an amended complaint on April 28, 2022. It repeated allegations concerning the towing-license denial and Social Security and unemployment matters and added numerous defendants, including Merrick Garland, Lina Khan, Northwell Lenox Hill Hospital, Dr. Sami Saba, the owner of Yonkers Auto Outlet, and others. The opinion states that it was unclear what claims Morris intended to bring against many of the newly added defendants.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court applied the screening requirement for complaints filed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court must also dismiss when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed by people without lawyers generously, those complaints still must give a short and plain statement of facts showing entitlement to relief.

The court concluded that the amended complaint did not satisfy this basic pleading requirement because it was not a short and plain statement that gave defendants fair notice of the claims against them. Morris also did not allege that he received a final decision from the Social Security Commissioner, so the court found that he had not pleaded a basis for judicial review of Social Security benefits.

The court treated Morris’s challenge to the towing-license denial as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the statute that permits certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The court stated that Morris did not plead facts that could support equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline in limited circumstances. The court further noted that, even if the claim were timely, Morris had not alleged facts showing that he lacked a meaningful opportunity for review, including review through a state-court proceeding under Article 78.

The court also dismissed the new matters because they appeared to concern subjects far removed from the original lawsuit and exceeded the limited permission to amend. Because Morris had already been given an opportunity to correct the defects and had not done so, the court found that allowing another amendment would be futile.

Disposition

The court dismissed Morris’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii) because it failed to comply with the order allowing amendment. The court denied further leave to amend. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Morris permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment. The order stated that nothing prevented Morris from reapplying for Social Security benefits, if appropriate.