Quiroz v. New York State

Background

Nicole Lynn Quiroz filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without prepaying court fees. She brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under state authority. Her amended complaint named five state agencies: the Florida State Department of Children and Family Services; the New York State Office of Children and Family Services; the Pennsylvania Department of Children, Youth and Families; the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; and the New York State Department of Health, Office of Professional Medical Conduct.

Quiroz alleged that she suffered abuse as a child, including an alleged rape by her father in a visiting facility at Sing Sing Correctional Facility in 1983, when she was about four years old. She also alleged abuse and failures to protect her in foster care and other facilities. The opinion states that some allegations concerned places in counties within the Western District of New York, while the Sing Sing allegation concerned Westchester County in the Southern District of New York.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the amended complaint under the statute governing complaints filed without prepaying fees. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or otherwise fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to include enough facts to make a claim plausible, while construing a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally.

The court ruled that the three New York agencies and the agencies from Florida and Pennsylvania were state agencies protected by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The court found that none of the three states had waived that immunity for this type of federal lawsuit, and that Congress had not removed the states’ immunity by enacting Section 1983. Because every named defendant was a state agency, the court dismissed Quiroz’s Section 1983 claims against all defendants.

The court separately discussed what would be required to replead the claim concerning Sing Sing. Quiroz would need to name an individual defendant who was a state actor and personally involved in violating her constitutional rights. The court stated that negligence would not support a Section 1983 constitutional claim. It also stated that a claim based on the 1983 incident appeared to be barred by New York’s three-year limitations period. Even assuming the period was paused during Quiroz’s childhood until she turned 18 in 1997, the court said a 2023 filing would still be decades late. The court further stated that New York’s Child Victims Act does not apply to Section 1983 claims and that the allegations did not show a basis for extending the limitations period.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Quiroz’s Section 1983 claims against all defendants based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court did not enter judgment and held the matter open for 30 days to allow Quiroz to replead the Section 1983 claim arising from the 1983 incident at Sing Sing. The court instructed her to identify a proper defendant, allege that person’s personal involvement, and explain who violated her rights and how, when, and where the violation occurred. If she did not amend the complaint, judgment would enter. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.