Hill v. Riverside Church

Background

Vivian Ann Hill, who was representing herself, alleged that Riverside Church.org and Reverend Adriene Thorne prevented her from voting at a Manhattan polling location on November 3, 2022. Hill alleged that the location was intentionally closed because of her, that Riverside staff knew her position regarding gay rights, and that Riverside staff denied her voting rights. She sought $1,000,000 in damages.

The court noted that Election Day in 2022 was November 8 and stated that either the complaint gave the wrong date or Hill attempted to vote early. The court had previously allowed Hill to proceed without paying filing fees. It therefore screened the complaint under the statute governing complaints filed without prepayment of fees.

Legal standard and analysis

The court construed the complaint as asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Hill’s fundamental right to vote had been violated. To state such a claim, Hill had to allege both a violation of a federal right and action by a person acting under government authority, commonly called a state actor. The court explained that a private entity’s conduct can sometimes be treated as government action when the government delegates a public function to it, including certain election-related functions.

The court found Hill’s allegations insufficient. Hill sued Riverside Church’s pastor, Reverend Thorne, but did not allege that Thorne acted as a poll worker or was present at the polling location. Although the complaint suggested that Riverside employees had worked at the location, Hill did not allege that those employees were there on November 3, 2022. The court also found that Hill did not identify any person with whom she interacted who actually prevented her from voting. The allegations instead suggested that she could not vote because the polling location was closed.

Disposition

The court dismissed Hill’s claims against Riverside Church.org and Reverend Adriene Thorne for failure to state a claim. It granted Hill 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must describe what happened at the polling location and name the individuals Hill alleges prevented her from voting. If she does not know their names, she may use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe,” but the court warned that doing so does not extend the applicable three-year limitations period.

The court instructed Hill to include the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief in the amended complaint. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Hill failed to amend within the permitted period and could not show good cause, the 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 permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.