Carter v. Jenkins

Background

Darryl C. Carter, who was representing himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows claims for constitutional violations carried out under state authority. He named Gary Jenkins, identified as the Commissioner of the City of New York Department of Social Services; Urban Pathways Inc.; Urban employees Leslie Segars, Ms. Johnson, and Mr. Gould III; and Doe defendants.

Carter alleged that the City’s Human Resources Administration denied or mishandled his applications for cash assistance, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, and Medicare. He claimed that the agency used a practice of not calling some applicants or intentionally dropping calls. He also alleged that Jenkins and the Urban defendants retaliated against him because of views expressed on his blog, including through harassment and poor treatment at Webster Safe Haven, a transitional shelter operated by Urban. His additional claims against the Urban defendants asserted misrepresentation, private nuisance, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law.

Due-Process Claims

The court treated Carter’s benefits allegations as procedural due-process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court explained that public-assistance applicants have a protected property interest in those benefits and ordinarily must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The court held that Carter had not stated a viable due-process claim because he did not allege that he requested a fair hearing or that the available fair-hearing process was inadequate. New York law provides procedures, including fair hearings and state-court proceedings, for challenging benefits decisions. The court also stated that Carter could not obtain an order compelling Jenkins to grant his benefits application because the federal court lacks general authority to compel action by state officials.

Because Jenkins was sued in his official capacity, the claims against him were treated as claims against the City of New York. The court explained that Carter would need to allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that the amended complaint did not do so for the due-process claims.

First Amendment Claims

As to the City, the court found that Carter’s allegation that the benefits applications were denied because of his blog speech was conclusory. He did not provide facts suggesting that Jenkins denied the applications because of the speech or that the denial chilled his speech. The timing of the blog and the benefits denial, without more, did not establish causation.

As to the Urban defendants, the court found that Carter similarly did not provide facts showing that his alleged treatment at Webster Safe Haven was caused by his speech. The court also found no specific facts identifying an Urban employee who acted jointly with a specific government actor, or facts showing that a government actor compelled an Urban employee to retaliate against Carter.

State-Law Claims and Leave to Amend

The court reserved its decision about supplemental jurisdiction over Carter’s state-law claims. Because the court was allowing another amendment and had not dismissed the federal claims, it did not decide whether to retain the state-law claims.

The court granted Carter 60 days to file a second amended complaint. The new complaint had to provide facts identifying who violated his rights, what each defendant did or failed to do, when and where the events occurred, the injuries he suffered, and the relief requested. The court instructed Carter that any second amended complaint would replace the earlier complaints, so claims or facts he wanted to preserve had to be repeated.

The court warned that if Carter did not timely file a compliant second amended complaint and could not show good cause, the amended complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Carter permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

Disposition

The court granted Carter leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days. It did not dismiss the federal claims in this order, and it reserved its decision on the state-law claims.