Cano v. City of New York

Background

Christopher Hiram Cano filed the action while detained at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island and proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees. Cano sought documents from the City of New York, Patricia Yang of New York City Correctional Health Services, Michael Pastor, and John Carroll of the Legal Aid Society’s Prisoner Rights Project. The requested records included medical records, documents concerning complaints made to NYC311, and other materials Cano said were needed for civil-rights actions.

The complaint referred to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988, and New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires early review of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or employees and requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant.

Court’s Analysis

FOIA. The court dismissed the FOIA claim because FOIA applies to federal agencies, while Cano alleged requests to city officials and did not allege that she requested records from a federal agency.

Section 1983 claims concerning city officials. Section 1983 provides a federal claim when a person acting under state authority violates a right protected by federal law. The court held that simply denying a request under New York FOIL does not establish a federal constitutional or statutory violation under Section 1983. The court said that a challenge to the denial of those FOIL requests belongs in a proceeding under Article 78 in New York state court. It dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the City of New York, Yang, and Pastor for failure to state a claim, without prejudice to any Article 78 proceeding Cano may pursue.

Section 1983 claim concerning Carroll. The court treated the allegation that Carroll failed to assist with the requests as a Section 1983 claim. It dismissed that claim because Carroll was alleged to be a private party, not someone working for a state or other governmental body, and private parties generally are not liable under Section 1983.

Sections 1981 and 1988. Section 1981 protects the right to make and enforce contracts without racial discrimination. The court dismissed Cano’s Section 1981 claim because the complaint alleged only that FOIL requests were denied and did not suggest a basis for relief under Section 1981. The court explained that Section 1988 concerns attorney-fee awards in certain civil-rights cases and is not a source of federal jurisdiction; it also stated that people proceeding without a lawyer are not entitled to attorney fees under that statute. The complaint therefore did not state a claim under Section 1988.

State-law claims and amendment. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The court stated that this did not prevent Cano from pursuing an Article 78 challenge in New York state court. The court also denied leave to amend because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Cano’s FOIA, Section 1983, and Section 1981 claims under the prisoner-screening statute. The Section 1983 claims against the City of New York, Yang, and Pastor based on alleged FOIL violations were dismissed without prejudice to an Article 78 proceeding. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, denied Cano’s motion as moot, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.