Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 4, 2023

Nanakumo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:23-cv-00314
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
13
EmploymentCivil ProcedurePro SeMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Nanakumo v. New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint but allowed one final chance to amend it.

Who this affects

Ebipamone N. Nanakumo’s amended lawsuit was dismissed, but he received one final opportunity to replead only employment-discrimination claims against New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation. The named defendants also remained affected by the dismissal of the amended complaint.

What happened

In Nanakumo v. New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation, Ebipamone N. Nanakumo alleged that his employer discriminated against him because of his Christian faith after he sought an exemption from a COVID-19 vaccination requirement. He said the employer denied the request, placed him on unpaid leave, and fired him.

The court dismissed the amended complaint because it included defendants who were not Nanakumo’s employer and repeated claims about the pandemic and vaccination requirement that the court had previously dismissed as frivolous. The court gave Nanakumo one final opportunity to file a second amended complaint asserting only employment-discrimination claims against his former employer.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain required any second amended complaint to be filed within 30 days and denied fee-free status for an appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Nanakumo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation · No. 1:23-cv-00314
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
July 4, 2023

Background

Ebipamone N. Nanakumo proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that his employer, New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation (HHC), discriminated against him because of his religion.

Nanakumo, a doctor, worked at Lincoln Hospital. On September 13, 2021, he requested a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccination mandate, asserting that the mandate violated his Christian faith. HHC denied the request on September 27, 2021, directed him to take unpaid leave, and later fired him.

The court’s March 6, 2023, order gave Nanakumo permission to file an amended complaint addressing deficiencies in his employment-discrimination claims and naming only defendants who could legally be held responsible under the cited employment laws. That order also dismissed as frivolous claims based on Nanakumo’s assertions about the pandemic’s origin and the purpose or usefulness of the vaccine mandate.

Amended complaint

Nanakumo’s amended complaint named HHC; Christopher Roker, identified as HHC’s chief executive officer; Barbara Marrero, identified as HHC’s human-resources director; Eric Adams; Dr. James V. McDonald; Kathy Hochul; Xavier Becerra; and Prof. Klaus Schwab on behalf of the World Economic Forum.

The court found that the amended complaint was substantially similar to the original complaint. It included several defendants who were not Nanakumo’s employer and repeated claims about alleged “crimes against humanity” and the pandemic and vaccination mandate. The court concluded that the amended complaint did not comply with the March 6 order, which had allowed repleading only of the employment-discrimination claim against Nanakumo’s former employer.

Ruling

The court dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a provision requiring dismissal of certain claims filed without prepayment of fees when they fail to state a claim. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The court granted Nanakumo a final opportunity to file a second amended complaint. The new complaint must assert only employment-discrimination claims against his former employer, be titled “Second Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-CV-00314 (LTS). It had to be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 30 days of the order. The court stated that, if Nanakumo did not timely file the complaint or show cause for failing to do so, it would enter judgment consistent with the order.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 13-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.