Matthew v. Arrow Security

Background

Izeh Matthew, who was representing himself and was not incarcerated, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants were Arrow Security, Securitas Security USA, Garrison Protective Services, New York City Fire Chief John J. Hodgens, and former New York City Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell. Matthew might also have intended to sue his former attorney, Illissa or Lisa Brownstein.

Matthew alleged that the defendants interfered with his work, made negative reports about him, and harmed his standing in the community. He referred to a criminal case that he said was dismissed after a jury trial. He sought $2 million and orders directing police and fire officials to stop making negative reports about him. The complaint also contained references to other people and events that the court found unclear or unrelated to the listed defendants.

Legal standard

Because Matthew had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court was required to screen the complaint. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint is read liberally, but it still must provide enough factual detail to make a plausible claim.

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state law. Private parties generally are not liable under Section 1983 unless the complaint alleges facts showing the required government involvement. The complaint also must allege each defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged violation.

Claims against private defendants

The court dismissed Matthew’s claims against Arrow Security, Securitas Security USA, Garrison Protective Services, and Brownstein for failure to state a claim. The complaint did not allege that the private defendants worked for a government body or otherwise acted under state law. It also did not allege facts showing that Arrow Security, Securitas Security USA, or Garrison Protective Services were personally involved in the events. The court noted that the complaint contained no allegations concerning those security companies.

Claims against Hodgens and Sewell

The court dismissed any claims against Hodgens and Sewell in their individual capacities because Matthew did not allege facts showing that either official was personally and directly involved in the events. The court granted Matthew 30 days to replead any individual-capacity claims against them.

The court treated any claims against Hodgens and Sewell in their official capacities as claims against the City of New York. A municipality is not liable under Section 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly did something wrong. Matthew had to allege a city policy, custom, or practice that caused the violation. Because he alleged no such policy, custom, or practice, the court dismissed those claims as well and granted 30 days to replead claims against the City of New York or against Hodgens and Sewell in their official capacities.

State-law claims and amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Matthew might have intended to assert.

The court granted Matthew 30 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and had to be limited to claims against Hodgens and Sewell arising from the events described in the original complaint. The court instructed Matthew to identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief requested. No summons would issue at that time. If Matthew did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the court said it would direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment consistent with the order.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It granted Matthew 30 days’ leave to replead specified claims against Hodgens, Sewell, and potentially the City of New York. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.