Hussey v. Mcduffie

Background

Yessuh Suhyes Hussey, who was detained at the time, sued Tiffany Dorethea McDuffie under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion states that McDuffie was representing Hussey in a criminal matter and was an attorney for New York County Defender Services.

Hussey alleged that on June 10, 2022, he gave McDuffie approximately six pounds of papers and other original materials, including blueprints, designs, logos, slogans, and business ideas. He said they agreed that McDuffie would mail the materials to his mailing address, but he alleged that they never arrived. In a separate complaint form attached to his filing, Hussey alleged that McDuffie failed to have another person at New York County Defender Services send him discovery materials on November 11, 2022. He sought $10 million on the first claim and $40 million on the second.

The action was originally filed in the Eastern District of New York and was transferred to the Southern District of New York. The court had allowed Hussey to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance and then screened his prisoner complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court concluded that it lacked legal authority to hear the claims as pleaded.

For federal-question jurisdiction, the court explained that a claim must arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Hussey invoked § 1983, but the court said a § 1983 claim must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law. Private parties generally are not liable under § 1983. The court further explained that representing a criminal defendant does not, without special circumstances showing coordinated action with a state representative, make an attorney a state actor for § 1983 purposes. Because Hussey did not allege that McDuffie was working for a state or other government body when she took the actions at issue, the court concluded that she could not be held liable under § 1983 on the allegations presented.

The court also found that Hussey had not adequately alleged diversity jurisdiction. Hussey alleged that he resided in New York and provided a New York work address for McDuffie, but he did not allege the state where McDuffie resided. The court also said that, although Hussey appeared to seek a total of $50 million, it was unclear whether any state-law claims were worth more than the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Hussey 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so Hussey must repeat any facts or claims he wants the court to consider. The court directed him to identify the relevant people, describe the events and each defendant’s conduct, state his injuries, and specify the relief sought.

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and granted 30 days to replead. No summons would issue at that time. If Hussey failed to comply and could not show good cause, the court stated that it would enter judgment consistent with the order. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.