Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 30, 2023

Correa v. Carnahan

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:23-cv-04968
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
EmploymentCivil ProcedurePro SeMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Correa v. Carnahan, Judge Carter dismissed Correa’s Section 1981 and New York Human Rights Law claims but ordered service of the remaining claims.

Who this affects

Colin S.K. Correa’s federal employment-discrimination case was narrowed: his Section 1981 and New York State Human Rights Law claims were dismissed, while the order directed service on Robin Carnahan regarding the remaining claims.

What happened

Colin S.K. Correa, representing himself, sued Robin Carnahan, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, alleging that his employer discriminated against him because of his race, color, sex, national origin, and age. He brought claims under Title VII, Section 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and New York’s Human Rights Law.

The court dismissed the Section 1981 claim because that law does not provide a claim against federal officials for employment discrimination. It dismissed the New York Human Rights Law claim because that state law does not provide relief for discrimination arising from federal employment. The order directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Carnahan on the remaining claims.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered the Clerk of Court to issue the summons and provide the necessary documents for service. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued, denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal, and instructed the Clerk to send Correa an information package.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Correa v. Carnahan · No. 1:23-cv-04968
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
June 30, 2023

Background

Colin S.K. Correa filed this employment-discrimination action without a lawyer against Robin Carnahan, Administrator of the General Services Administration. He alleged discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, and age. The complaint invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

The court had previously allowed Correa to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In cases proceeding under that status, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims Dismissed

The court dismissed Correa’s Section 1981 claim for failure to state a claim. It explained that Section 1981’s protection against discrimination applies to state actors and nongovernmental discrimination, but not to federal officials. Because Correa alleged employment discrimination against federal defendants, the court concluded that Section 1981 could not support his claim.

The court also dismissed Correa’s New York State Human Rights Law claim for failure to state a claim. The court explained that this New York statute does not provide relief for discrimination claims arising from federal employment.

The order does not state that the Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims were dismissed. Instead, it directs service on Carnahan.

Service and Other Orders

Because Correa was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to handle service of the summons and complaint. The Clerk was instructed to issue a summons for Carnahan, complete the required service form, identify service on the United States, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve the defendant.

The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summons is issued. It also instructed Correa to notify the court in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was also instructed to send Correa an information package.

Disposition

The court dismissed the Section 1981 and New York State Human Rights Law claims for failure to state a claim and directed service on Carnahan. The order did not specify that either dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.