Lopez v. U.S. Department of the Interior

Background

Mariah Lopez proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to file without paying the filing fee. She alleged that the U.S. Department of the Interior, the National Park Service, the Hudson River Park Trust, the New York State Executive Chamber, and the New York State Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation approved or funded a Hudson River Park construction project without considering the site’s historical significance to the transgender community.

Lopez alleged discrimination based on race, disability, and gender identity. Her original complaint invoked constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the National Historic Preservation Act, Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, and various state laws. In an earlier order, the court found that the pleadings did not clearly explain what each defendant did, that defendants were immune from suit unless an exception applied, that the Title VII allegations did not show an employer-employee relationship, that the complaint did not show the relevance of the transportation statute, and that the historic-preservation allegations were insufficient to state a plausible claim.

Lopez filed an amended complaint that presented substantially similar allegations in a more concise form. She did not reassert her Americans with Disabilities Act claims or her state-law claims for libel, defamation, and slander. She also did not invoke the Federal Tort Claims Act or the Administrative Procedure Act in the amended complaint, so the court did not address those statutes.

New retaliation allegations

The amended complaint added retaliation allegations concerning Lopez’s activism and litigation. She alleged that people connected with the New York State Executive Chamber, the National Park Service, and the Hudson River Park Trust undermined an annual Pride-weekend event by providing inadequate facilities and selectively enforcing park rules.

She also alleged that, at a 2022 event at the Stonewall National Monument, private security personnel prevented her from entering while other members of the public were admitted. She said she had been carrying a bullhorn, that her photograph had been circulated among security staff, and that she was surrounded by police. She further alleged that event-related individuals monitored her Facebook page, viewed her as a public-safety threat, and threatened consequences connected to the event.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court held that the amended complaint remained deficient for the same reasons as the original complaint. It concluded that Lopez sued defendants who were immune from suit and did not provide facts stating a claim for which relief could be granted or showing that she was entitled to relief from any defendant.

The court dismissed the new retaliation claims without prejudice because they concerned individuals who were not named as defendants and exceeded the scope of the amendment the court had allowed. The court also noted that the new claims did not appear properly connected to the challenge to the Hudson River Park project under the rules governing joining claims and parties.

After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its related authority over any state-law claims. It dismissed any state-law claims without prejudice. The remaining claims in the amended complaint were dismissed for failure to state a claim and on immunity grounds under the statute governing screening of fee-free complaints.

The court denied further leave to amend because Lopez had already been given an opportunity to correct the pleading’s defects and had not done so. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Lopez fee-free filing status for purposes of an appeal.