Windsor v. The City of New York

Background

Allen Windsor, who was representing himself, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, federal criminal statutes, and state law. He alleged that events occurred between November 10, 2011, and May 18, 2020. According to the complaint, Windsor tried in 2011 to provide law-enforcement officials with information about possible criminal or terrorist activity learned from Craigslist, but officials instead arrested and prosecuted him. The complaint referred to a second trial in May 2017, but did not clearly explain the first trial, the outcome of the second trial, or what happened afterward.

Windsor asserted claims described as gender-identity discrimination, other discrimination, witness tampering, evidence tampering, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. He also referred to 18 U.S.C. § 242, defamation, and state tort law. The defendants were the City of New York; the Legal Aid Society; Eliza Orlins, Esq.; the “NYC Court Society”; the New York Police Department; the “New York County District Attorney Division”; and the “NYC Safe Hotline Tele. Service & Port Authority Div.”

The court had previously allowed Windsor to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. Because he was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual detail to make the asserted claims plausible.

Court’s analysis

Private prosecution. The court dismissed any claims seeking criminal prosecution of the defendants or other people. It held that a private citizen cannot prosecute a criminal action in federal court, and that federal prosecutors—not private citizens or courts—control whether federal criminal charges are brought.

Office of the New York County District Attorney. The court dismissed Windsor’s Section 1983 claims against the Office of the New York County District Attorney. It concluded that the office was protected by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states and qualifying state agencies from federal lawsuits. The court stated that New York had not waived that immunity and Congress had not removed it for Section 1983 claims.

Legal Aid Society and Eliza Orlins. The court explained that Section 1983 generally applies only when a defendant acted under authority of state law. Private parties, including private lawyers and legal-aid organizations, ordinarily are not state actors for this purpose. Because Windsor did not allege that the Legal Aid Society or Orlins worked for a state or other government body, the court concluded that he had not stated a Section 1983 claim against them.

City agencies and the City of New York. The court stated that the “NYC Court Society,” the New York Police Department, and the “NYC Safe Hotline Tele. Service & Port Authority Div.” had to be dismissed because New York City agencies generally are not separate suable entities. As to the City itself, the court explained that Windsor had to allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice that caused a violation of his constitutional rights. The complaint did not allege facts showing such a policy, custom, or practice. Because Windsor was representing himself, however, the court allowed him to amend the complaint to try to state a municipal-liability claim against the City.

Statute of limitations. The court stated that Section 1983 claims in New York generally have a three-year limitations period and usually accrue when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury. Because Windsor alleged events beginning in 2011 and filed this action on March 1, 2023, the court said claims arising before March 1, 2020, were presumably untimely. The court found no facts suggesting a basis for extending the deadline, but allowed Windsor to address timeliness in an amended complaint.

State-law claims. The court did not decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Windsor’s state-law claims. It explained that this decision would depend in part on whether Windsor could state a federal claim.

Ruling and required next steps

The court granted Windsor leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to replace the original complaint completely, rather than supplement it, so Windsor had to repeat any facts or claims he wanted the court to consider. The court directed him to identify each defendant, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide relevant dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. The amended complaint had to be captioned “Amended Complaint” and include docket number 23-CV-1800 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time.

The court stated that if Windsor failed to comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Windsor permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.