Best v. ACS
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-03017
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Best v. ACS, Judge Swain denied Best’s request for an injunction without prejudice because her filing did not state a claim.
Motisla Saholay Best was required to file a compliant second amended complaint before seeking further emergency or injunctive relief; ACS and the other named defendants were not subjected to the requested injunction by this order.
What happened
In Best v. ACS, Motisla Saholay Best, representing herself, asked the court for emergency and injunctive relief related to alleged denials of social-service assistance. The court had already directed her to file a second amended complaint addressing pleading, timing, and venue problems.
Best did not file the required complaint. Instead, she submitted an emergency request and then a motion seeking injunctive relief, but neither filing gave a short and plain statement showing that she was entitled to relief from the named defendants.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for injunctive relief without prejudice. She required Best to file a compliant second amended complaint by October 15, 2023, warned that failure could lead to dismissal for failure to state a claim, and denied fee-free appeal status for any appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Best v. ACS · No. 1:23-cv-03017
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 29, 2023
Background
Motisla Saholay Best was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. The court had previously directed her to file a second amended complaint because her earlier complaints did not comply with federal pleading rules, at least some of her claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 appeared untimely, and the Southern District of New York did not appear to be the proper venue for claims arising in Queens County and Nassau County. The court warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal.
Best did not file the required second amended complaint. She instead filed an emergency request for marshals to serve a warrant and later filed a motion for injunctive relief to “continue due process.” She asserted that employees at the Human Resources Administration and Department of Social Services had acted unconstitutionally by denying her social-service assistance.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that filings by people representing themselves are read liberally, but they still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the person filing it is entitled to relief.
The court concluded that Best’s August 21, 2023 submission did not provide a short and plain statement showing that she was entitled to relief from the named defendants. Without a pleading stating a claim for relief and addressing the issues identified in the earlier order, the court could not grant emergency or other relief.
Ruling and effect
The court denied Best’s motion for injunctive relief without prejudice. Before considering another request for injunctive or emergency relief, the court required her to file a second amended complaint complying with the June 26, 2023 order by October 15, 2023. The court stated that, absent timely compliance or a showing of good cause, the first amended complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Best fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal from this order. The opinion does not decide whether Best’s underlying claims are legally valid.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.