Kelly v. City of New York

Background

Kedanai Kelly, who was representing herself, sued the City of New York on behalf of herself and her minor child, identified in the order as “S.S.” Kelly invoked diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction and alleged that the City violated her rights. Her allegations referred to events at hospitals, courts, and residences from February through April 2023. They included allegations about illegal sedation, defamation, an arrest, an abuse-and-neglect case, withheld court documents, removal of her child, discrimination, civil liberties, heritage, sexual orientation, and employment discrimination. She sought unspecified damages.

The court had previously allowed Kelly to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It therefore reviewed the complaint under the statute requiring dismissal of a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks relief from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims on behalf of S.S.

The court held that a nonlawyer parent generally cannot represent a child in federal court without a lawyer. Because Kelly is not an attorney, the court dismissed without prejudice any claims she was asserting on behalf of S.S. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to remove the child’s full name from the docket, list the child as “S.S.,” and restrict electronic access to the original complaint to case participants. The court instructed Kelly to use only the child’s initials in future filings.

Failure to state a claim

The court ruled that the complaint did not comply with Rule 8, which requires a short and plain statement giving each defendant fair notice of the claims and the facts supporting them. The court found that Kelly provided too few understandable facts to identify what the City did, how the City allegedly violated her rights, or the nature of the claims she intended to bring. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Jurisdiction and possible civil-rights claims

The court concluded that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because Kelly’s complaint indicated that both she and the City were citizens of New York. The court also considered whether the allegations could be understood as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. For a claim against a municipality, the plaintiff must allege that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the rights violation. The court found that Kelly alleged no facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of her federal rights. It dismissed any Section 1983 claims against the City for failure to state a claim.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because Kelly was representing herself and might be able to provide additional facts, the court granted her 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must state the relevant facts, what each defendant did or failed to do, the injuries, the requested relief, and the facts establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that it would direct entry of judgment consistent with the order if Kelly did not timely amend and could not show good cause for the failure.

The court dismissed without prejudice all claims asserted on behalf of S.S. It also dismissed Kelly’s complaint for failure to state a claim and granted 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. The court denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.